Latest Cases

County court – Costs. The present appeal concerned, among other things, whether the court had power to order a tenant to pay any costs to the landlord under the terms of the lease where the costs had arisen in related Land Valuation Tribunal (LVT) proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the appellant could not show that the judge had not had power to deal with any costs incurred in the LVT proceedings. The LVT had not dealt with an order for payment of those costs and the respondent landlord could not be estopped from claiming them in the county court because the LVT could not have ordered it its costs under the terms of the lease. 

Judgment – Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had given a judgment which had quashed an order of the Competition and Markets Authority, although there was an interim stay in respect of part of the CMA's order. The CMA applied, unsuccessfully, to extend the stay. The court found that the period of the stay reflected the period of the measures in the CMA's order and the court could not prolong their life beyond that date. Accordingly, the court did not have jurisdiction to extend the period of interim relief. 

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The judge had held that the claimant was entitled to a right of way over land owned by the defendant, relying on the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that: (i) the present court would not be justified in interfering with the judge's finding that the claimant had believed that it had or would have a right of way via the garden access; (ii) the judge's finding that the claimant had believed it had or would have a right of way across the garden because it had been encouraged so to believe by the defendant had been justified; (iii) there had not been any error in the judge's conclusions on detrimental reliance; and (iv) the judge's evaluation of the issue of unconscionable conduct had not been wrong. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant planning permission for the erection of a single wind turbine, together with associated infrastructure. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error in preventing a substitute councillor to participate and there had been no misreporting to the committee. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Emesa-Trefileria SA and another company (the applicants) for partial annulment of a decision of the European Commission that the applicants and other undertakings had infringed art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by participating in a cartel between prestressing steel suppliers at European, regional and national level. 

Contract – Repudiation. The Chancery Division, in a case concerning the employment status of the claimant fund manager, held that the doctrine of repudiatory breach was implicitly excluded in relation to multi-party agreements that fell within s 5 of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. The claimant had locus standi to bring his claim but, in the circumstances, there was no proper basis in law upon which he might be entitled to claim a pro rata share in the profits of the LLP of which he had been a partner. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a case in which the defendant local authority had moved residents from a care home, the claimants sought summary judgment on the basis that the authority had no realistic prospect of establishing that the actions of its employees were lawful following a consideration of s 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. There was also an application for disclosure. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed both applications. 

National Health Service – Duty to provide healthcare services. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, rejected their contention that the defendant Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to exercise his power to require abortion services to be provided to women from Northern Ireland on the same basis that they were made available to women in England. The court held that the decision had not been irrational, nor had there been a breach of the claimants' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Boundary – Hedge. In the course of the claimant's action in trespass, the parties disputed the boundary between their properties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the first defendant's appeal, held that the evidence was not sufficient to rebut the presumptions which underlay the hedge and ditch rule. Further, nothing in the general depiction of boundaries in the conveyance to the claimant led to the conclusion that he had obtained anything less than the property along the boundary under the rule. 

Sentence – Length of sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of two years' imprisonment, following the offender's plea of guilty to an offence of arson, contrary to s 1(2) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, had been unduly lenient. The sentence was substituted for one of three years' imprisonment in circumstances where the fire had been started against the wall of a mid-terraced property.