Latest Cases

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The Administrative Court previously found the second defendant Secretary of State in breach of public law duty to provide systems and resources the claimant prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection needed to demonstrate that detention was no longer necessary for public protection. As the first and second claimants had completed the healthy sex programme course and the second claimant would be provided with it in April to June 2016, it was no longer necessary to make a mandatory order. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant building contractor's appeal against the dismissal of its claim for injunctive and declaratory relief to restrain the defendant employers from proceeding with an adjudication to determine the sum properly due to the claimant, following termination of the contract. The judge had not erred in his construction of para 9(2) of Pt 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. The defendants were entitled to proceed to adjudication in order to determine the correct value of the claims and counterclaims. 

Practice – Evidence. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the defendant's application to adduce expert evidence from a quantity surveyor with expertise in dispute resolution, on condition that it was subject to close control. In all the circumstances, expert evidence was necessary and, in any event, there were issues in respect of which the evidence would be of assistance and it was reasonable to require expert evidence to be given in the context of the proceedings as a whole. 

Patent – Practice. The Patents Court struck out the applicant company's application to amend one of the claims of a patent following a trial at which it had been unsuccessful. The court held that the application to amend was an abuse of process, because it could and should have been made prior to trial. 

Elections – Local government. The Divisional Court granted the petitioner's petition on the basis that it appeared that the acts and omissions for which the fourth respondent returning officer was responsible, having effectively disenfranchised 115 electors, had affected the result of the election of the second and third respondents. Further, it was impermissible to speculate how excluded voters would or might have cast their ballots at any particular time. 

Guarantee – Solicitor. The Chancery Division considered a construction dispute in which the defendant solicitors' firm had admitted breach of duty. The court considered that, although the claimants were entitled to judgment, causation had not been made out, and accordingly they were entitled only to nominal damages. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that, following a judgment in favour of the defendant in a building contract dispute, as a matter of construction, an offer to settle was and/or should be treated as a defendant's CPR Pt 36 offer and costs were awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis. 

Contract – Offer and acceptance. The Commercial Court made rulings concerning, among other things, the amount that the claimant company owed the defendant company for work carried out by the defendant on an aircraft. The court held that a 'gentleman's agreement' made between the parties was binding and would affect the entire amount remaining to be paid by the claimant. 

Income tax – Profits. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayers against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to strike out the taxpayers' respective cases on the bases that: (i) the claim that s 58 of the Finance Act 2008 was incompatible with art 56 of the European Community Treaty had been adjudicated on in previous proceedings, namely R (on the application of Shiner) v Revenue and Customs Comrs[2011] STC 1878 (Shiner); and (ii) that it was an abuse of process to argue that point. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The Supreme Court dismissed Marks and Spencer's appeal in which it had sought to recover an apportionment of rent paid quarterly in advance, in circumstances where it had exercised a break clause that had led to determination of the lease during that quarter. Save in a very clear case, it would be wrong to attribute to a landlord and a tenant, particularly when they had entered into a full and professionally drafted lease, an intention that the tenant should receive an apportioned part of the rent payable and paid in advance, when the non-apportionability of such rent had been so long and clearly established. Therefore, the court refused to imply a term allowing Marks and Spencer to recover the sums paid.