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. 

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. 

Local authority – Contract. The Commercial Court made rulings on preliminary questions in a dispute concerning the provision of services by the claimant company to the defendant local authority. The court held that, at the time in issue, the claimant had been in breach of the agreement between the parties. The authority had been entitled to terminate the agreement. 

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 – 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. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Greece to serve a sentence of 22 years' imprisonment for two counts of sexual offences against a young boy. The judge had been entitled to conclude that the appellant's extradition would be compatible with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and, having reached that conclusion, he had been required to order extradition. 

Lease – Consumer credit. The Chancery Division granted the defendant property developer's application for summary judgment on a claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which contended that the transfer fee provisions in leases amounted to the provision of credit and that the leases were unenforceable consumer credit agreements. On the true construction of a lease, the defendant had not provided credit to the claimants in the transfer fee provisions of the lease and the claimants had had no real prospect of succeeding on its claim. 

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. 

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.