Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted the claimant an injunction to restrain the use of documents to which Legal Professional Privliege had applied and which contained confidential information in a libel trial. 

Contract – Repudiation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a ship charterers' appeal regarding the measure of damages to be assessed following the charterers' repudiatory breach of contract, following which the owners sold the vessel for a higher price than would have been obtained had it been sold at the anticipated expiry of the charterparty. The court held that if a claimant adopted by way of mitigation a measure which arose out of the consequences of the breach and was in the ordinary course of business and such measure benefited the claimant, that benefit was normally to be brought into account in assessing the claimant's loss unless the measure was wholly independent of the relationship of the claimant and defendant. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against an order permitting his former partner to relocate to Abu Dhabi with their two children. The court confirmed that the law on penalties did not apply to stipulations for payment of money upon the happening of a specified event other than a breach of a contractual duty owed by the contemplated payor to the contemplated payee, therefore, a charge over the mother's husband's property in favour of the father, to be triggered in the event of breach of the court order, would not be unenforceable. Further, wardship, in the circumstances, was inappropriate and would be replaced by a child arrangements order. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed the claimant Kazakhstani national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision treat his application for further leave to remain as invalid on the basis that he had failed to submit a police registration certificate. The certificate had not been specified as mandatory in the application form or in any related guidance. 

Immigration – Removal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused the claimant permission to seek judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove him from the United Kingdom on the ground of deception. It held that the claimant had not established the fundamental prerequisite to a substantive legitimate expectation, namely, a clear and unambiguous promise, or representation, devoid of any ambiguity, conveyed directly or indirectly to him. Further, his case was defeated by the application of the alternative remedy principle. 

Counsel – Disciplinary jurisdiction. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant barrister's appeal against a three-month suspension for professional misconduct. The conduct described had been seriously below the standard to be expected of a barrister and there were no grounds for interfering with the decision. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the principles applicable to cases where a parent wished to relocate with his or her child within the United Kingdom were the same as those applicable to cases where a parent sought to relocate outside the United Kingdom: namely the welfare of the child was paramount. There was no rule that internal relocation could only be refused in exceptional circumstances, and the proportionality of any interference with a parent's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be considered as part of the same balancing exercise, and not separately. 

Pension – Pensions Regulator. The Administrative Court held that, in determining whether seafarers employed by the claimant fell within the territorial scope of the Pensions Act 2008, as the defendant Pensions Regulator maintained, so as to qualify for automatic enrolment into a pensions scheme, the test had to be whether the individual was working in Great Britain in the sense of working with their base in Great Britain, rather than doing work here on a temporary basis. 

Judgment – Enforcement. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to enforce a judgment obtained in the United States against the defendant in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division allowed an application by the joint special administrators of a company to return client assets to clients pursuant to a distribution plan. The Court decided that the application was a highly convenient method of achieving the desired objective, and worked fairly, equitably and reasonably.