Latest Cases

Insurance – Reinsurance. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the claimant company was not entitled to avoid two reinsurance treaties and could not recover the sum of around US$5.15m paid to the defendant under the treaties because, had a fair presentation of the defendant's position been given, it was not more likely than not that the claimant's representative would have refused to agree the treaties. 

Employment – Arbitration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employees' appeal, held that, on a proper construction of the Employees Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3426, under which employees were entitled to request that their employer negotiate an agreement concerning information and consultation of employees, the Central Arbitration Committee had been correct in deciding that an 'undertaking' had to be a legally registered company. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had rejected an offer of permanent accommodation made by the respondent local authority, at which points its housing duty to her was discharged. The reviewing officer confirmed the decision and the appeal to the county court was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the reviewing officer had been entitled to find that there was no medical evidence that a property of its type would have the consequence that the appellant's mental health would be so affected by it as to make it reasonable for her to refuse to accept it in all the circumstances of the case. Further, the officer had conscientiously recognised the public sector equality duty and had been at pains to acquire all information relevant for that purpose. 

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. The Chancery Division held that, where an application was made for interim relief under s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, it was necessary for a claim to be commenced for the relief to be granted. In the circumstances, it would be necessary for the applicants to commence a claim for the relief to be granted. 

Injunction – Discretion. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for an anti-arbitration injunction against the defendant, which had brought arbitration proceedings in Italy, where the parties had agreed, in a terms of business agreement, an exclusive jurisdiction provision for arbitration with the foreign seat. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority applied for care orders in respect of two children. The authority pursued findings that bruising sustained by one of the children had been inflicted upon him either by the mother or her partner. The Family Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the broad canvas of the evidence demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, the bruising sustained by the child had been accidental. In light of that conclusion, and in circumstances where those allegations represented the only issue that the local authority had with the care of the children by their mother and her partner, the threshold criteria, under s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, were not satisfied. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division, in the mother's absence, made special guardianship orders in favour of the maternal grandparents, together with 12 month supervision orders in favour of the local authority in respect of each of the three children. Parental responsibility for two of the children were plainly made out in the case. 

Extradition – Appeals – 'Territory' – Human rights – Extraneous considerations. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal by a British citizen, who was convicted of drink driving and negligent manslaughter in Taiwan, against a sheriff's decision sending his case to the Scottish Ministers to decide whether he should be extradited to Taiwan, the court held that the sheriff had not erred in holding that Taiwan was a 'territory' for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003, or in concluding that the appellant had received a fair trial in Taiwan; the evidence did not demonstrate a 'reasonable chance' or 'serious possibility' that the appellant, if extradited, might be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race or nationality; and parties should be allowed a further opportunity, at an evidential hearing, to lead evidence on the issue of whether, if extradited, the appellant would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading conditions in Taipei prison. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the regime which required disclosure of his 31-year-old conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which he had been given a two-year conditional discharge and been bound over to keep the peace for 12 months as a breach of his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that Parliament had been fully entitled to draw a 'bright line' between the offences requiring disclosure and those that did not. Further, if the disposal was always relevant, the 'bright line' might have to be redrawn, and the requisite approach would be disproportionate and unworkable. 

Partnership – Dissolution. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, following the dissolution of the partnership that the parties had formed, the claimant had not been entitled to exercise his rights under a settlement agreement, owing to his failure to satisfy a condition precedent that he should provide information as to the identities of the creditors of the partnership.