Latest Cases

Firearms – Possession of firearm without a certificate. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for possessing a firearm without a firearm certificate contrary to s 1(10(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, in circumstances where the defendant had been in possession of two flash eliminators but not in possession of any prohibited weapon or firearm. The court held that, on the evidence, the proviso at the end of s 57 of the Act, which envisaged an item being an accessory to something which was not a controlled firearm, had not arisen. 

Company – Voluntary winding up. The respondent company had successfully appealed against a judge's order that property in the liquidation of another company should be sold to the two appellants. The Privy Council allowed the appellants' appeal, holding that the judge's order had not been flawed to such an extent that it should be set aside. In particular, the parties had been aware that the judge intended to sanction the sale to the highest bid received by a specified date and time and the fact that the terms of sale had been provided shortly before that deadline had not, on the facts, been unfair. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, in a tort based claim brought by seven Malaysia born claimants, against the British Government in respect of treatment experienced in Malaysia after the period 1944 to 1957 after independence was agreed, held that once the true legal context of the claim had been identified there had been no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim as s 1(2)(b) of the Federation of Malaya Independence Act (FMIA) made provision for the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the Commonwealth and for the termination of Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the Malay States. 

Solicitor – Undertaking. The claimant company, LSC, had been the victim of a mortgage fraud. It brought a claim against the defendant solicitors, Abensons, who had undertaken that certain representations made fraudulently had been true. The Chancery Division held that the claims for breach of undertaking and breach of warranty of authority were made out, and that there had been a breach of a duty of care owed in tort by Abensons to LSC. 

Trust and Trustee – Settlement. The Chancery Division approved an arrangement for the variation of the trusts of a settlement, where the trust fund was subject to inheritance tax, to incorporate a power to accumulate income to meet future periodic inheritance tax changes, and to extend the trust period. The proposed arrangement did not give rise to a resettlement of the fund and was to the beneficiaries of the trust. 

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 – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda (Infocit) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'DINKOOL' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by the Health Food Manufacturers' Association and other companies for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 (establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children's development and health), and the alleged decision of the European Commission adopting a list of 'on-hold' health claims. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the competent authority's decisions finding no reasonable grounds for concluding that he had been trafficked from Vietnam to Russia or onward from Russia to the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the reasonable grounds decisions had been flawed by failures to address the right question, to apply the right burden of proof, and failures to apply the sympathetic and inquisitorial approach to credibility advocated in the defendant Secretary of State's guidance. That also constituted a breach of the duty of inquiry, under art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

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.