Latest Cases

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant appealed against his conviction, in his absence, of causing death by dangerous driving on the basis that the he had been unfit to be tried and the trial should not have proceeded in his absence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the defendant had not been unfit and, as he had decided voluntarily to absent himself from a trial, the judge had been right to continue. There had been no procedural unfairness or irregularity. 

Company – Compulsory winding up. The Secretary of State presented a petition, under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986, seeking an order that the respondent company be wound up on the basis that it would be expedient in the public interest. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that misuse of insolvency legislation by the respondent's scheme demonstrated a lack of commercial probity, such that it was just and equitable to wind up the company. 

Insurance – Contract of insurance. The Commercial Court held that the claimant, acting on behalf of a Lloyd's syndicate, was entitled to avoid a contractors combined liability policy both for material non-disclosure and misrepresentation, by the defendant tunnelling constructor, and that it had validly avoided the policy. The defendant's counterclaim thus fell to be dismissed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Technology and Construction Court made practice decisions in two applications brought by the defendant in respect of two claims brought by the claimant. In the first claim the court granted relief from sanctions and the necessary extension of time for the particulars of service, and in the second claim it would accede to the defendant's application to strike out the claim. 

Employment – Trade union. The Privy Council dismissed the appeal by ArcelorMittal Lisas Ltd (ArcelorMittal) against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) to uphold the judgment of the Industrial Court of Trinidad and Tobago by which that court had granted the Steel Workers Union of Trinidad and Tobago a declaration that ArcelorMittal should be deemed to be the employer under labour only contracts of all those persons employed by so-called contractors and that the employer was bound to apply collective agreements entered into by the parties to those contract workers. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Technology and Construction Court following the approach in the case of CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd and others [2015] All ER (D) 86 (Mar) made decisions on the costs budget as submitted by the claimant in respect of an unexceptional contract case. 

Adoption – Order. Two years after the applicant's adoption by the respondents, she was sent to Ghana to live with their extended family, where she was abused. The Family Division granted her applications to revoke the adoption order and change her name back to that of her biological mother in the highly exceptional and very particular circumstances. 

Insurance – Policy. The Commercial Court held that the defendant insurer was entitled to deny liability in respect of the claimant's yacht as it had been overvalued and the claimant had failed to make material disclosures in relation to the value. The claimant was however entitled to recover damages from a broker in respect of its failing to take care to ensure that the proposal form for insurance of the yacht stated the opinion of its market value. 

Compensation – Crime. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of their claims for compensation for miscarriage of justice, under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had not been unlawful on public law grounds. 

Adoption – Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a mother's appeal against the rejection of applications made by her in the present proceedings by which she sought to challenge the care and placement orders made in respect of her daughter who had been placed with prospective adopters. The Court decided that the judge who had made the orders had been justified in doing so for the reasons he had given.