Latest Cases

Trust and trustee – Creation of trust. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimants' application for a declaration that they, among four named trustees, held a property in equal shares. The court held that, on the evidence, the property was held in equal shares by each of the nine children of the purchaser. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the discharge of an anti-enforcement injunction regarding judgments that had been delivered by the courts in Togo and Cote d'Ivoire. In circumstances where the bank had delayed in seeking an injunction, issues of prejudice and comity had meant that the judge had been correct to discharge the injunction despite a valid arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties that had provided for arbitration in London. 

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. 

Costs – Assessment. The Queen's Bench Division held that the master had erred in principle in his decision in relation to the costs namely whether a retrospective success fee was allowable in all the circumstances of the case before him. In that respect the master had been wrong as there was no basis for any conclusion that the risk was different in December 2012 to that which had existed in July. 

European Union – Enforcement of judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for a declaration that the defendant, who had succeeded in proceedings in France, was not entitled to have that judgment recognised or enforced in the English courts. The allegations concerned did not give rise to an infringement of the claimant's rights at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of England and Wales. 

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. 

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. 

Patent – Medicine. The Chancery Division made declarations as sought by the claimant pharmaceutical companies. It held that the initial marketing authorisation for a drug, Ribomustin, had been obtained in 2005, as contended by the claimants, rather than 2010, as contended by the defendant pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the ten-year period of delay before the claimants could market their own product had commenced in 2005, not 2010. 

Damages – Assessment. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity, damages for treatment expenses and funeral expenses in the sum of £7,113.17 on behalf of the father's estate following his death at the second defendant hospital. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by British Airways plc (BA) for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that BA and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment.