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. 

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. 

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. 

Solicitor – Practice. The Chancery Division considered whether a statutory trust created when the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) intervened in the business of a limited liability partnership extended to money that could be shown to have belonged to the practice when it had been conducted in the name of the partnership that had proceeded it. The court held that, on the true construction of the word 'practice' in para 6(2) of Pt II of Sch 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974, the money in issue fell within the scope of the trust imposed on the applicant solicitor by the SRA. 

Guarantee – Construction. The claimant had issued proceedings seeking payment from the defendant insurance company under advance payment bonds and performance bonds that it had issued. The claimant applied for summary judgment, contending that the bonds were 'on demand' and so the liability to pay had arisen. The Commercial Court held that there was no material difference between general principles of contractual construction and 'Paget's presumption' for the construction of such instruments. Further, Paget's presumption applied not only where a bank had issued an instrument, but also to an insurance company, in the ordinary course of its business, particularly where the language of the instrument clearly indicated an intention to create an 'on demand bond'. The claimant's application was granted where, on the true construction of the instruments, they were 'on demand' bonds. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division, on preliminary issues in defamation proceedings, held amongst other things that s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provided that a statement was not defamatory of a person unless it had caused or would probably cause serious harm to that person's reputation, those being matters that had to be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities. The intention of Parliament was that claimants should have to go beyond showing a tendency to harm reputation. The court could have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including evidence of what had actually happened after publication. 

Conversion – Defence. The Queen's Bench Division gave judgment in favour of the claimant casino owner in respect of a £2m dishonoured cheques proffered by the defendant. IN so doing it rejected the defendant's argument that he had a gambling disorder and his defence of illegality. 

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. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Colombian national's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) dismissing her appeal against a deportation order made against her by the respondent Secretary of State, pursuant to s 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007. The UT had had jurisdiction to consider, and had been right to hold, that the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in law and that its decision could not stand. In re-making the decision, the UT had identified and carefully considered all the factors which had favoured the appellant and given full weight to them. It had been entitled, nonetheless, to conclude that they had not been strong enough to outweigh the public interest in deportation.