Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union had to be interpreted as meaning that agreements to share clients, such as those concluded between the private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constituted agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 13(B)(a) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 had to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which was independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which could affect certain parts of that vehicle constituted an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant, a failed asylum seeker, had failed to prove that the defendant had committed the tort of false imprisonment against him by failing to apply and/or consider the application of her published policy relating to persons who had been tortured. 

Trust and trustee – Document. The Chancery Division considered the interpretation of a clause in a servicing agreement that was part of the documentation relating to a commercial mortgage-backed securitisation transaction. It held that, overall, the claimant trustee's interpretation was to be preferred. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The claimants issued proceedings in tort, under the Human Rights Act 1998 and public law claims concerning their detention by British armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq for longer than 96 hours. The judge's findings included that the act of state defence applied to the tort claims. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the application of the act of state defence required compelling considerations of public policy which would require the court to deny a claim in tort founded on an act of the executive performed abroad. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and Directive (EC) 2004/48. The request had been made in proceedings between Diageo Brands BV (Diageo Brands), proprietor of the trade mark 'Johnny Walker', and Simiramida-04 EOOD (Simiramida) concerning a claim for damages made by Simiramida for the injury caused to it by a seizure carried out at the request of Diageo Brands of bottles of whisky of the Johnny Walker brand which had been intended for Simiramida. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A local authority had sought care orders in respect of two children, but the Recorder granted an order in respect of one child only. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the authority's appeal as the Recorder had erred in finding that the threshold criteria had not been crossed in respect of the other child and had erred in his approach towards making findings of fact.