Latest Cases

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The present was the first case in which, in addition to seeking an injunction under s 381 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the claimant Financial Conduct Authority invited the court to impose a penalty for market abuse under s 129 of the Act. The Chancery Division gave guidance on the relevant statutory provisions, and granted injunctions and penalties against the defendants. 

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. 

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. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimants applied for an order for the committal of the defendant to prison, under CPR 71.8, for breach of a court order. The Chancery Division found the defendant in contempt in some respects and adjourned the committal application, with directions that the defendant depose specified matters and provide identified documents. 

Criminal law – Murder. The defendants were convicted of murder in the context of a feud between two Turkish drug gangs. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the second defendant's appeal against his sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure, with a minimum term of 18 years custody, and the fourth defendant's appeals against conviction and his sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 33 years. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In the defendant bridge institution's application to set aside or stay the claimants' proceedings against it as successor of debts, the Commercial Court found that it had jurisdiction, under European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/2012, which it would not decline to exercise by reason of the principle of non-justiciability or act of state. Further, a stay would not be granted pending the decision of the administrative courts in Portugal, on the basis of case management. 

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. 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant Afghani nationals sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to remove them to Afghanistan. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the applications, held that there was no illegality or irrationality in the decisions, despite the possibility of a revised memorandum of understanding as to repatriation of Afghan nationals. Further, there was no warrant for departing from the country guidance in AK Afghanistan v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] UKUT 00163 (IAC)). 

Housing – Homeless person. The Queen's Bench Division of the Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the revised Housing Allocations Policy of the London Borough of Ealing in circumstances where the claimant's application to be placed on that local authority's housing register had been rejected on the basis that she had not been resident in the borough for five years. The court decided that, among other things, the policy did not provide for the giving of reasonable preferences to prescribed categories of persons as required by s 166A of the Housing Act 1996 and was therefore unlawful. 

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.