Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, in response to letters of request send from United States Court for information needed in the US proceedings, made an order agreeing to the disclosing of certain information by the respondents. The respondents were corporations based in the UK specialising in corporate investigations so therefore it was in the public interest that the respondents did not disclose their individual sources. 

Mortgage – Equitable interest. The judge had dismissed a claim by the defendant, W, to have an overriding interest enforceable against the claimant based on an entitlement in equity to ownership of a property and, by reason of such overriding interest, to be entitled to the proceeds of sale. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge had been right to hold that the defendant had been precluded, by operation of the principle in Brocklesby v Temperance Permanent Building Society and others ([1895-9] All ER Rep Ext 2099), from maintaining that he had a beneficial interest in relation to the property with potential to have priority over the security interest of the claimant and, hence, that he could not claim to have an overriding interest as against the claimant. 

Practice – Civil litigation. In the course of a building dispute, the claimants sought a declaration in relation to the right of adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court refused to give the directions that the claimants were seeking. The claimants persisted in seeking directions as to that issue. The court held that no useful purpose was to be served by the pursuit of the claimants' application for a declaration. The claimants' application would be stayed and the proceedings would continue. 

Patent – Infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that claims 1 and 7 of European Patent (UK) No 2,099,626 B1 (the patent), which claimed an invention entitled 'System for indicating the state of loading of a vehicle', were invalid for lack of inventive step over an item of prior art, namely US Patent No 6,591,677. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant company's application to continue an interim injunction, which had been granted to restrain the enforcement of orders made against it in foreign proceedings brought by the defendant, where the claimant had delayed in bringing arbitration proceedings in England and where it was not arguable that the subject matter of one set of the foreign proceedings fell within the arbitration agreement. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had suffered burns when his uncle, who had unknowingly been suffering with florid paranoid schizophrenia, had set fire to himself. He sought damages in negligence under his uncle's household insurance policy. The judge found that his uncle's actions had not been voluntary, therefore he had not owed a duty of care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal. It held that the actions of a defendant, who was merely impaired by medical problems, whether physical or mental, could not escape liability if he caused injury by failing to exercise reasonable care unless his condition entirely eliminated his responsibility. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment on the claimant's claim that the defendant had been party to a contract for the sale and purchase of property, which it had signed on behalf of an unregistered company, and had been in repudiatory breach of it, pursuant to s 36C(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (s 36C). Nothing in the contract allowed the defendant to argue that there had been a contrary agreement, pursuant to s 36C of the Act. 

Minor – Medical treatment. The Family Division, in an emergency application by the applicant NHS Trust held that it was in the child's best interests to withhold invasive ventilation despite the wishes of the parent to have such treatment administered. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 15, 15a and 15b of Council Directive (EEC) 92/49 (on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive (EC) 2007/44. The request had been made in proceedings between CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participacion SA and others and Netherlands Central Bank, concerning the requirements to which the latter had subjected the approval of proposed acquisitions of the qualifying holding in the capital of Atradius NV. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The fourth and fifth defendants (Kaupthing and JJ respectively) sought the dismissal or stay of the proceedings. The Commercial Court held that the proceedings against Kaupthing had been brought in breach of a prohibition on legal action against it contained in art 116 of the Icelandic Bankruptcy Act 1991, which had effect in the United Kingdom by reason of reg 5 of the Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1045. However, the claims against both Kaupthing and JJ were not excluded by art 1(2)(b) the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.