Latest Cases

Employment – Victimisation. In proceedings arising from an employment dispute, the claimant sought judicial review of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) decision, dismissing his complaint, on the basis that it had persistently failed to investigate his complaint fairly and without bias. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not shown any grounds on which the MCA's decision ought to be quashed or it ought to be ordered to take any further action. 

Fiduciary duty – Breach of duty. The Chancery Division, following a finding that the defendant had acted in breach of fiduciary duty to the claimant company, held an inquiry into the benefits received by the defendant as a result of the said breaches of fiduciary duty. 

Income tax – Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ruled on various issues arising from an application by the taxpayer for judicial review of a demand from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners relating to his tax return, made pursuant to Ch 6 of Pt 4 of the Income Tax Act 2007. The tribunal decided that although the judicial review procedure used by the taxpayer to challenge the Revenue's demand had been inappropriate, having heard the parties' arguments, it would grant declarations to give effect to what the tribunal had decided. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 5 of Council Directive (EEC) 89/104 should be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark registered in one or more member states could oppose a third party placing goods bearing that trade mark under the duty suspension arrangement after they had been introduced into the European Economic Area and released for free circulation without the consent of that proprietor. 

Income tax – Partnership. The 154 taxpayers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the legality of partner payment notices given by the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners in the exercise of new powers under the Finance Act 2014. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of natural justice and the decision to give the notices was neither unreasonable nor irrational. Further, there had been no breach of the taxpayers' legitimate expectations, or their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. 

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. 

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. 

Personal injuries – Action. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed a number of test claims made following the escape of smoke from a plant run by the defendant company. The court held that scientific evidence in the case did not begin to support the great majority of the claims, and there were serious weaknesses in the claimants' overall case. 

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. 

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.