Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court granted the applicant discharged bankrupt permission to bring an action against the respondent, the released joint trustee in bankruptcy, under s 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order that he repay, restore or account for money or pay a sum by way of compensation in respect of misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty in carrying out his functions as trustee. There was evidence to suggest that the applicant had a reasonably meritorious cause of action against the respondent on the basis of his having incurred and paid legal fees in excess of what he had had authority to incur. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal against a district judge's dismissal of the claimant's application to set aside a second statutory demand issued by a bank against him under a guarantee where it had been based on the same argument, promissory estoppel, used in respect of his application to set aside the first statutory demand issued by the bank. Where there was a second statutory demand, an argument that had been run unsuccessfully and abandoned on appeal could not be raised in respect of a second statutory demand unless there was a change of, or special circumstances. There were no special or exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify re-opening or re-arguing the promissory estoppel point, which had previously been rejected and the district judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion that he had. 

Family Proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against the recorder's dismissal of his application to enforce indirect contact with his children. The recorder could not be criticised for having rejected an application for 'enforcement' which, in the circumstances, had not been capable of effective enforcement. 

Personal injury – Vicarious liability – Employer and employee. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal against a sheriff's decision by a pursuer who sustained injuries as a result of an accident in the course of his employment with the defenders when a hammer a manager had thrown at another employee struck him on the head, the court concluded that the sheriff had not erred in deciding that the defenders were not vicariously liable for the act of the manager, their employee, as it could not be said that his reckless act occurred in the course of his employment. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused the father's application for the summary return of his son C to Saudi Arabia on the basis that C wished to remain with the mother who was determined to remain in the United Kingdom and if C was returned, Sharia law would possibly prevent the mother taking C out of the jurisdiction. 

Mortgage – Charge by way of legal mortgage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant bank's appeal against the dismissal of its claim against the defendant, save in one respect, for the repayment of a sum which was alleged to have been due from him under a mortgage. Completion of a re-mortgage transaction ordinarily included the redemption of the prior charges and the discharge of the existing borrowings was a necessary component of completion. There was nothing in the terms of the contract or the instructions to the solicitors to displace that in the present case. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that, on the facts, it had jurisdiction under, alternatively arts 4, 5 or 7 of Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 in a case relating to maintenance obligations for a wife and child. Further orders were made. 

Practice – Offer to settle. The Admiralty Court considered an application for a declaration that proceedings concerning a collision between two vessels had been compromised by the claimants' acceptance of an offer made by the defendants. The court declared, among other things, that the claim form had not been validly served and the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division held that there was no substance in any of the mother's suggested 'defences' or exceptions to an order for summary return of a child. The child had to go back to his country of habitual residence for the courts there to resolve the dispute about where he should live and with whom, as well as the mother's application to deprive the father of parental responsibility. 

Evidence – Medical evidence. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an appeal of the defendant in regard to the decision of a master in a 'show cause' hearing in a mesothelioma claims provided for in CPR 6 PD 3.6D. The master had been entitled to reach the conclusion on the evidence presented to him and also in the light of his experience in dealing with cases of that nature. It was possible that another master would have permitted the case to go to trial, but that was not the test.