Latest Cases

Criminal law – Murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was an additional common law qualification or exception to the inviolable nature of legal professional privilege. It would be appropriate to impose a requirement that particular individuals could be present at discussions between an individual and his lawyers if there was a real possibility that the meeting was to be misused for a purpose, or in a manner, that involved impropriety amounting to an abuse of the privilege that justified interference. 

Damages – Personal injury. Judgement was given in respect of the claimant's claim against the defendant hospital with damages to be assessed at 50% of the value of the full value of the claim. The Queen's Bench Division made various awards in relation to the claimant's future care and made findings to enable the parties to agree final sums to be awarded under various heads. 

Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture of lease. The appellants had been refused relief from forfeiture following the breaches of a head lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed their appeal as the judge had misdirected himself in concluding that relief should be refused in the circumstances. The appellants were given conditional relief from forfeiture, dependent upon their selling their leasehold interest within six months. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The appellant wife applied for a variation of the terms of an undertaking given by her to the court in a financial order made by consent in divorce proceedings. The judges below held that the effect of Omielan v Omielan ([1996] 3 FCR 32) was to exclude jurisdiction to entertain the wife's application for a variation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the wife's appeal, held that, while the existence of the jurisdiction to vary the undertaking was recognised, there was no basis upon which the court would exercise the jurisdiction in the present case. 

Jurisdiction – High court. The claimants applied for a Civil Restraint Order in respect of the defendant, part of the order extending to proceedings in the Employment Tribunal (the ET). The defendant opposed the making of the order on the basis that the High Court did not have supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts and tribunals and that there was no statutory power to make a CRO relating to proceedings in the ET. The Queen's Bench Division found that the High 

Charity – Cy-près doctrine. The appellant trustees appealed against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity), amending the scheme created by the fourth respondent Charity Commission on the basis that one purpose of the trusts was to retain the recreation ground as an open space for recreational purposes. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in allowing the appeal, held that the trusts had not been created to preserve the recreation ground in specie as open space. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court held that the question of whether or not, under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, more than five years had elapsed since events giving rise to an allegation of fitness impairment of the appellant general practitioner was an objective question of precedent or jurisdictional fact and the date stated in the complaint against him had been wrong, leading the registrar into material error. Accordingly, the court had power to intervene to quash the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration. 

Housing – Security of tenure. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the first defendant's appeal against an order declaring that she and her husband held a property under a non-secure tenancy. It held, among other things, that the certificate in the tenancy agreement had not functioned as a notification of a secure tenancy for the purposes of para 4 of Sch 1 to the Housing Act 1985. 

Company – Director. The applicants, in their capacity as liquidators of Micra Contracts Ltd (the Company), brought an application, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, against the respondent directors. The Companies Court held that, among other things, whether the subjective or objective test was applied, on the evidence, the respondents had acted in breach of their duties under s 172 of the Companies Act 2006. The court proposed to order that the respondents restore the sum of £72,225.66 to the Company. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection affirmed an order previously made appointing two of the patient's children to act as deputies for properties and financial affairs following a purported appeal by his other children. The factor of magnetic importance was that the patient had named the two children in his will, which suggested that he trusted them to deal with his affairs and that they would act fairly towards their siblings.