Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that the patient had capacity to determine her own medical treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The consequence of that decision was that M would die. 

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. 

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. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant landlord's appeal against a judge's decision declaring that the claimant lessee was entitled to acquire the freehold of a house leased from the landlord, pursuant to Pt 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The judge had been entitled to reach the decision which he had. It would not be consistent with the purposes of the Act to allow the legal division of a party wall to disqualify the house from enfranchisement 

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. 

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. 

Company – Take-over bid. The Supreme Court, an allowing the appellants' appeal, held that the proper purpose rule in s 171(b) of the Companies Act 2006 applied to the respondent company's decision to issue notices restricting the rights attaching to their shares under the company's articles. Having determined the proper purposes of the relevant article, it found that the company had acted for an improper purpose. 

Customs and excise – Duties. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Xerox Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to uphold a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners that the correct classification for customs purposes of what were colloquially called 'ink sticks' was under heading 3125 of the Combined Nomenclature, as established by art 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2658/87. 

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. 

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.