Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The parents' children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term's fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen's Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant bank withdrew proceedings for possession against P. A dispute arose as to whether costs should be paid by the bank on the standard basis or the indemnity basis. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the bank had not acted for a collateral purpose that had been beyond its abilities, and its proceedings had not been an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, costs would be awarded on the standard basis. 

Sentence – Drug offences. Sixteen defendants appealed against the sentences imposed on them for their part in a conspiracy to supply large quantities of Class A drugs to crime groups for onward distribution. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the judge had correctly used the descriptors within the sentencing guideline for leading, significant and lesser roles for the purposes of distinguishing between the roles played by different defendants. The sentencing exercise had received detailed consideration both of the facts and the approach to sentencing in the area. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Laboratoires Polive for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausoni, SLU, and Laboratoires Polive concerning the application by Laboratoires Polive for registration of the word sign 'DODIE' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal law – Trial. Following changes to the funding of legal aid in criminal cases, the defendants in a complex fraud trial were unable to obtain representation by counsel. The judge in the Crown Court stayed the proceedings. The Financial Conduct Authority, as prosecuting authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal. To conclude that the state had violated the process of the court or that what had happened had jeopardised the integrity of the criminal justice system (as opposed to its effective operation) was wrong as a matter of principle. Further, on closer analysis, the judge had been wrong to find that there was no realistic prospect of competent advocates with sufficient time to prepare being available in the foreseeable future. 

Practice – Striking out. The first defendant newspaper published sensationalist stories about the claimants' arrests in separate incidents. The claimants issued proceedings, alleging infringement of privacy and confidentiality. The first defendant applied to strike out the claims on grounds including that the proceedings concerned damage to reputation and should only have been brought in defamation, which were statute-barred or an abuse of process. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the applications, held that the first defendant had not established that it was sufficiently plain that a claim based on damage to reputation could only be brought in defamation. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant obtained information in relation to the claimant Tata (a multi-national IT consultancy company). Tata was very anxious that the defendant had seemingly managed to obtain access to confidential information and applied for interim injunctive relief requiring the delivery up of certain property belonging to Tata and the deletion of any soft copies of that property and prohibiting the defendant from communicating or disclosing to any person Tata's proprietary and confidential information as well as from inducing or procuring any third party to provide him with Tata's proprietary and confidential information. The Queen's Bench Division allowed both aspects of the interim relief. 

Mortgage – Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss 26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s 31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s 26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged. 

Human rights – Right to life. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the United Kingdom had an obligation, under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to investigate the death of her son, a British soldier murdered by an armed mob when visiting a police station in Iraq in June 2003. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application held that art 2 of the Convention did not give a member of the armed forces a civil right to be protected by the state against errors, including negligent errors, in the military chain of command in carrying out an order relating to the conduct of operations in theatre where such an error created or increased the risk of loss of life. Accordingly, there was no duty under art 2 of the Convention to hold an investigation. 

Practice – Hearing. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to propose to the European Union Council of Ministers to add their names to a list of designated individuals against whom freezing orders would be made as part of international sanctions against Iran. The Secretary of State sought a declaration, under s 6(2) of the Justice and Security Act 2013, for an order that a closed material procedure could be used. The Administrative Court, in making the declaration, held that the conditions under s 6(4) and (5) of the Act had been met, as the material in question was sensitive and there was no practicable alternative to a closed material procedure if the case was to be fairly tried.