Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to the competing rights in arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights granted a without notice interim non-disclosure order in respect of explicit material being threatened to be put into the public domain following the break up of a relationship of a well know actor. 

Company – Merger. The Companies Court considered an application under Regulation 16 of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007to approve a merger between two companies. It approved the merger, but suggested that the process by which the court had considered whether a merger should be approved, in the case of Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd, Re ([2012] EWHC 3576 (Ch)) might have gone beyond that which was required by the relevant European Union legislation. 

Immigration – Appeal. The appellants had been refused permission to seek judicial review of the certification of their human rights claims under s 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed their appeals, but dismissed the substantive judicial review applications. The court gave guidance on the interpretation of s 94B and its interplay with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Parent and child – International child abduction. Court of Session: Refusing a father's petition for an order for the return to Australia of his two daughters, aged six and eight, who had been wrongfully removed to Scotland by their mother, the court held that the father had acquiesced in the wrongful removal of the children, that evidence of what occurred during mediation held in Scotland was admissible, and that it would not be appropriate to return the children from Scotland to Australia. 

Criminal law – Company. The defendant civil engineering design company appealed against its conviction for two health and safety offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly determined that the issue as to whether there had been a material risk had been a matter for the jury and that there had been ample evidence of material risk. 

Bank – Duty of care. The Mercantile Court dismissed the claimants' case against the defendant bank for compensation for their losses on the sale of their investment portfolio. The court held that in giving the advice that it had done the defendant had not acted negligently, in breach of contract, or in breach of its statutory duties under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook Rules. 

Repudiation – Implied repudiation. The Commercial Court held that the defendant television company had wrongfully terminated the claimant company's contract with it. The events that the defendant had described as fundamental breaches of the agreement between the parties had not been, and so the defendant had not been entitled to terminate the agreement. In purporting to do so, it had itself been in repudiatory breach of the agreement. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Rosian Express SRL against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a games box as a Community trade mark. 

Bank – Bank loan. The Chancery Division construed a contractual provision contained in a complex securitisation structure set up between the parties in order to provide for a loan to a company for the purchase of rental properties. The loan although not due until 2019 fell due to an event of default under the financial crisis. 

Costs – Interest on costs. The Commercial Court considered the date from which interest, under s 17 of the Judgments Act 1838, should run on costs payable by the claimant. Having considered the applicable principles, it ordered that interest on the costs payable by the claimant to the defendants and to the second third party was to run at the Bank of England Base Rate plus 2% from the dates when the costs had been incurred until a date three months after the orders for costs had been made, and at the rate prescribed by s 17 of the Act thereafter.