Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division held that the claimant bank was entitled to possession of a property as against the defendant company. There was no defence to the claim, because the lease had been granted without the bank's written consent contrary to the express terms of two charges by which the defendant had charged the property with the repayment of sums due to the bank. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's application for an interim payment in the amount of £1,203,300, to fund expenses in the present period before trial in about 2.5 years under CPR 25.7(4). 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant company's negligence case against the defendant solicitors. The court held that the defendant had adequately warned the claimant about a restriction on a property in which the claimant had sought to obtain an interest. In any event, the claimant had not established that it would have acted differently if different advice had been given. 

Claim form – Service. The Patents Court allowed the claimant company's application for permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the second defendant, a company based in China. There was a serious issue to be tried as well as a good arguable case. Further, England and Wales was plainly the proper place to bring the claim. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed an application for summary judgment or, alternatively, to strike out the claimant's claim, in an action concerning alleged negligent tax advice. The court held that it would be wholly wrong to dismiss the claim at the present stage. 

Coroner – Inquest. The Divisional Court held that it could not entertain the claimant's application for mandatory orders quashing the original inquest findings into her son's death and directing that a fresh inquest be conducted. Neither an inquest or an investigation had been 'held' within the meaning of s 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 because neither process had been completed, but it would be open to the claimant to invite the coroner to reconsider his decision. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Hikari Miso Ltd (Hikari) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd and Hikari concerning the application by the latter company for registration of the word mark 'Hikari' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal law – Assault. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to a simple caution administered on her by the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner for an alleged offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Commissioner had not breached para 76 of the Ministry of Justice guidance 'Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders' by having stated that the alleged victim had had a broken nose, when it had only been suspected that her nose had been broken. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that had decided, among other things, that the provision by Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) free of charge to its customers as part of a business promotion campaign of vouchers redeemable at certain high street retailers was not to be treated, by art 3 of the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993, SI 1993/1507, as a supply of services in the course or furtherance of ANL's business, and was accordingly not subject to a liability to account for output VAT in that respect. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by prospective adopters against an order that a child should be removed from their care and returned to the care of her father. Both the hearing itself and parts of the judge's analysis had been flawed to such an extent that the outcome could not safely be relied upon and, accordingly, the order would be set aside and the welfare issue determined afresh by a different judge.