Latest Cases

Immigration – Entry clearance – Judicial review – Human rights – Time bar. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which a husband, wife and two sons sought declarator that the Home Secretary infringed their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by refusing to grant the wife entry clearance to settle in the UK as the spouse of a British citizen in the period between 15 February and 14 May 2012, and also sought damages by way of just satisfaction, the court held that the petition was time-barred and indicated that it would have refused it in any event. 

Mental health – Mental health review tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered a dispute between two local authorities concerning the responsibility for a man who had been made subject to two hospital orders in different areas of the country. The court held, in dismissing the appeal, that where a person had been made subject to a hospital order with restrictions, then conditionally discharged, then recalled to hospital, and then conditionally discharged for a second time, for the purposes of s 117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, he was still to be treated as resident in the area of the same local authority as that in which he had lived before the original hospital order had been made. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant, Credit Suisse, brought proceedings, claiming €83,196,829 from the defendant company as money allegedly due under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2002 agreement (the master agreement) in respect of 11 transactions it had allegedly entered with the defendant. The claimant contended that it had duly terminated the master agreement after the defendant had failed to provide security due under a credit support annex. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding that three of the contracts, comprising six of the disputed transactions, had been outside the defendant's capacity and therefore invalid, because of warranties in additional representations in the master agreement, that did not affect Credit Suisse's rights or the defendant's obligations under the master agreement. Alternatively, the claimant was entitled in damages for breach of the warranties to the amount that they could have recovered under the master agreement if all the agreements were valid and binding on the defendant. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel (the panel) of the respondent General Medical Council found that the appellant doctor's fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a sanction of erasure from the medical register. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sanction was disproportionate. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel's determination was unimpeachable. It had come to a conclusion that it had been entitled to on the evidence before it and had provided adequate reasoning for the task which it had had to discharge. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant was the freehold owner of a piece of empty land (the adjoining plot) immediately adjacent to a property in Holland Park, which was owned by the defendant management company. The defendant sought an interim injunction to prevent the claimant from applying for planning permission to build a house which she proposed to build on the adjoining plot. The Chancery Division, refusing the application, held that that difference in the risk of unquantifiable damage pointed firmly in favour of not granting the injunction, in particular, having regard to various undertakings which the claimant had offered. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The parties were both companies which, among other things, provided vehicle rental services. The proceedings concerned alleged infringement by the defendants of the claimant's trade mark. In the course of proceedings, the claimant made an application seeking to adduce survey evidence. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate for the survey evidence to be adduced. 

Motor insurance – Rights of third parties against insurers. The claimant suffered personal injury as a result of a road traffic accident. The Motor Insurers' Bureau was the insurer of last resort became liable under the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 (the agreement). The claimant commenced proceedings. The claim was dismissed in the county court on the grounds that the claimant's claim was barred on grounds of public policy and the claimant knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of crime, namely the transportation of cannabis for the purpose of subsequent supply, and cl 6(1)(e)(iii) of the agreement was accordingly applicable. The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal on the ex turpi causa issue on the basis that the joint criminality was only the occasion, and not the cause, of the accident but dismissed it on the cl 6(1)(e)(iii) issue. The claimant issued a new claim for damages arising as a result of the defendant Secretary of State being in breach of art 1(4) of Directive 84/5 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles) (the second directive). The Queen's Bench Division held that the United Kingdom, in the legal personification of the defendant, was in plain breach of EU law, and the question of liability to pay compensation on principles in Francovich v Italian Republic therefore arose. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant housing trust's appeal against the findings of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning land development in Jamaica. The Privy Council decided that there was no sufficient basis for the Board to disturb the arbitrator's award. 

Solicitor – Undertaking. The claimant made an application in the course of other proceedings to have the defendants and a solicitor committed for breach of an undertaking which was not an undertaking to the court. The Queen's Bench Division considered the jurisdiction of the court to commit for breach of an undertaking given by a solicitor other than an undertaking to the court; as well as whether the court should exercise any discretion it had to allow committal proceedings to be brought on the facts of this case. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Application for disclosure. The proceedings concerned the ownership of property and whether that property formed part of the deceased's estate. In the course of proceedings, the judge made an order preventing the disclosure of certain information given to the Revenue and Customs Commissions. The second defendant appealed. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the judge had been wrong in her conclusion that the material documents and/or their contents were not subject to legal advice privilege and, to that extent, the appeal would be allowed.