Latest Cases

Will – Testator. The Chancery Division held that, in a dispute concerning the validity of the testatrix's second will, the second will had been made validly, and that the testatrix had both had capacity and had known and approved the contents of the will when she had signed it. The claimant's claim for the court to decree probate over the will was allowed, and the first defendant's caveat on the will was vacated. 

Vicarious liability – Non-employment relationship. In a historic sexual abuse claim by the claimant against various aspects and persons of the Jehovah's Witness organisation, the Queen's Bench Division held that the organisation of Jehovah's Witness was vicariously liable for the acts of various members and that s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 would be used to allow the claimant to bring her claim. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant challenged the defendant local housing authority's housing allocation scheme on the basis that it unlawfully suspended an applicant's ability to bid for social housing until 12 months had elapsed following acceptance as an unintentionally homeless eligible person in priority need. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the differentiation permitted by the Housing Act 1996 was restricted to adjusting the relative priority of sub-groups by reference to features which afforded them some opportunity to be allocated social housing, however remote that possibility might be. The authority's scheme afforded the claimant no preference. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The proceedings concerned an application by a wife for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to require a husband to pay £8.49m plus interest and fees required to complete the purchase of a property. The husband resisted the application on the basis that the wife's application was an attempt by her to enforce one element of a financial remedy agreement made in the course of financial remedy proceedings. The Family Division held that the element was a separate and distinct element and was therefore enforceable. 

European Union – EU Institutions. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank should be interpreted as permitting the European System of Central Banks to adopt a programme for the purchase of government bonds on secondary markets, such as the programme announced in the press release to which reference was made in the minutes of the 340th meeting of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on 5 and 6 September 2012. 

Practice – Order. The defendants applied to set aside a judgment made against them for failure to comply with an unless order in the disclosure of documents. The Commercial Court held that the judgment would be set aside, where it was not persuaded that it should reject as untruthful the defendants' accounts of their problems in listing certain documents that needed to be disclosed. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The issue for determination was whether the claimant was entitled to rely on art 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 to sue an alleged foreign-domiciled tortfeasor in the same proceedings as a direct claim brought against such tortfeasor's foreign-domiciled liability insurer in the English court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that art 11(3) of the Regulation applied to the claim which the claimant wished to pursue against the second defendant tortfeasor, notwithstanding that the claimant had been seeking the procedural advantage of the higher quantum of damages that would be awarded by an English court. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that, Chapter 1, paras 2 and 13 of Annex X to the Act of Accession 2003, had to be interpreted as meaning that Austria was entitled to restrict the hiring-out of workers on its territory, in accordance with Chapter 1, para 2 of that annex, even though that provision did not concern a sensitive sector, within the meaning of Chapter 1, para 13, thereof. 

European Union – Directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Estonia for annulment of certain provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings). The Court decided that the European Parliament and the Council had not infringed, respectively: (i) the principle of proportionality; (ii) the principle of subsidiarity; and (iii) the obligation to state reasons. 

Insurance – Indemnity insurance. The defendant insurance company, Zurich, refused to indemnify the claimant after an individual suffered a serious injury when using a gun to attach wire together. The Commercial Court held that the refusal to indemnify had been mistaken and that Zurich was obliged to indemnify under the policy.