Latest Cases

Will – Construction. The Chancery Division allowed a claimant's application for a declaration regarding the construction of a will in which the property referred to had not belonged to the deceased, but another property on the same road had belonged to him. Probate had been granted in relation to the will and it was clear that the deceased had intended to refer to the property that he had owned. 

Company – Administration. The Chancery Division allowed the Official Receiver's application, under s 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, for an order that the respondent, a Hong Kong resident, was to produce a witness statement, with supporting documents. Section 236(3) of the Act had extra-territorial effect and, provided the considerations identified in previous authority were satisfied, the court had jurisdiction to require a person resident outside the jurisdiction to submit to the court an account of his dealings with a company, or to produce any books, papers or other records in his possession or under his control relating to the company. 

Compensation – Crime. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimant's judicial review proceedings, held that the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him compensation under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 had been lawful. In any event, the claim was academic because the Secretary of State would have been bound to re-determine the question applying the new statutory definition of 'miscarriage of justice' inserted by s 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the particulars of claim in proceedings concerning an alleged breach of confidence. It held that the claim was not barred by limitation and that, although damages in the case were not likely to be large, the case was not rendered an abuse of process by reason of being a nugatory claim. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Family Division in a case for financial provision following a divorce in a six year marriage considered the various factors in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1925 and came to conclusion on a clean break solution taking into account their pension entitlements. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court found certain facts in relation to a case in which a child C1 in the female public toilets. The facts as found meant that the threshold criteria of s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 had been made out and the court was satisfied that the only order that could and should be made for C1 was a care order with a long term fostering plan. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court held that the defendant local authority's decision, replacing the 100% reduction in council tax for those eligible for support because of their lack of resources with an 85% reduction, had not been discriminatory. However, there had been a failure by the authority to have due regard to the public sector equality duty. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division dismissed the first defendant's application challenging its jurisdiction to hear claims for commission said to be due for the sale of properties and for breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, where he had waived any jurisdiction point when he had submitted to the jurisdiction in earlier actions and where the third claimant had given and undertaking to stay or dismiss an action in Kuwaiti in so far as it reflected the relief sought in the present action. 

Local authority – Contract. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an association's appeal against the strike out of its defence and summary judgment against it in respect of a local authority's claim for specific performance of a contractual obligation that it re-transfer a site back to the authority for failure to develop the site by the target date. The public law defences of legitimate expectation and abuse of power were not available in circumstances of a commercial contract dispute. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) gave guidance on appeals against tribunal costs orders made in immigration judicial review proceedings. It then struck out the claimants' applications for permission to appeal, as no valid application had been made due to the egregious contravention of r 44(7)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698.