Latest Cases

Company – Conspiracy. The Chancery Division considered whether there had been an unlawful means conspiracy in circumstances where the director of an insolvent company had conspired to transfer the assets of that company to a company that he controlled. The court held that, in the circumstances, the claimants had failed to establish the loss that they had alleged in the action they had brought for damages. Accordingly the claim failed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant directors of Lloyds TSB plc's application for summary judgment on a claim brought by the claimant shareholders, alleging breach of fiduciary and tortious duties concerning Lloyds' acquisition of Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) in 2009, by failing to disclose that HBOS had been manipulating its London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Where disclosure had not yet taken place, the court could not say with confidence at the present stage that the claimant's case would turn out at trial to be without substance. 

Sentencing – Order for lifelong restriction (OLR). High Court of Justiciary: Allowing appeals by two prisoners against OLRs imposed on them in respect of an assault on another prisoner, the court held that there was no sufficient link between the offence and the risk the appellants posed, the risk criteria were not satisfied and the statutory test for the imposition of an OLR was not met: it accordingly quashed the OLRs and substituted extended sentences. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division, allowed the third to sixth defendants' application under CPR 40.12 seeking clarification or amendment of an order for costs made following the trial of a probate action concerning a will. The amount of the claimant's personal liability for the costs of the third to sixth defendants under the order was not limited by reference to the amount of her pecuniary legacy. The court exercised its inherent power under CPR 40BPD 4.5 that the order be amended to add words to the order to ensure any ambiguity in the order was removed. 

Mortgage – Sale. The Chancery Division dismissed an application for an order to stop the sale of a property pursuant to a contract that was entered into as a result of an auction. There was no arguable basis upon which the sale of the property which was due to take place should be interfered with. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection made an order revoking the appointment of the patient's two children and appointing a person from a solicitors' firm to be the patient's deputy for property and affairs. The revocation was made on the basis that the children were not fulfilling their duties having regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Code of Practice. 

Order – Amendment. The Technology and Construction Court, in a case concerning the interpretation of a complex contract, dismissed the defendant's application to amend an order that there be a statement of agreed facts by adding a requirement that it should include background matters relevant to the dispute and a chronology of factual matrix documentation. The amendment sought was unnecessary and unduly prescriptive as well as going beyond what was contemplated by the order that there be a statement of agreed facts. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a wife's application for the committal to prison of her husband for failure to comply with two specific disclosure orders in ancillary relief proceedings. The orders had been validly served by email as ordered by the court and the application notice had been served by the same method. The judge dispensed with the need for personal service and concluded that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband had not only failed to comply, but had been defiant in his refusal. The sentence was backed by a request for a European arrest warrant. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused to grant injunctions in respect of proprietary claims, on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried and that it was not just and convenient to grant a freezing injunction. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection authorised the use of necessary physical restraint as would enable the investigations in a medical hospital to be carried out on the patient who was being detained under s 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.