Latest Cases

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Production of documents. The Companies Court dismissed the applicant liquidators' application relief from the sanction imposed by a default order that had been imposed for non-disclosure in the proceedings. In the circumstances, given the liquidators' failure to carry out proper disclosure, it was inappropriate to grant relief from the sanction imposed. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings arose out of the acquisition by the claimant from the defendant of one of its business divisions. The claimant claimed damages for loss it said resulted from fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendant in respect of the forecasts on which the claimant relied, and damages for breach of contract. The defendant applied to strike out the particulars of claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Commercial Court held that, in the circumstances, the defendant was entitled to the relief sought in one regard. 

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. 

European Union – Workers. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 39(2) EC should be interpreted as not precluding a member state, for the purposes of charging income tax on a non-resident worker who had pursued his occupational activity in that member state during part of the year, from refusing to grant that worker a tax advantage which took account of his personal and family circumstances, on the basis that, although he had received, in that member state, all or almost all his income from that period, that income did not form the major part of his taxable income for the entire year in question. 

Pleading – Amendment. The claimants brought proceedings alleging negligence by the first defendant in the design of an investment strategy for a pension fund and alleged mismanagement by the second defendant of the fund's investments. The claimants applied for permission to amend the particulars of claim and the first defendant applied to strike out part of the particulars of claim or, alternatively, for further information. The Chancery Division allowed the first main amendment to the particulars of claim and disallowed the second. The application for strike out was refused, but the second defendant was entitled to the further information it sought. Further, the claimants were required to re-plead their case. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had all claimed asylum in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as minors. Their claims had been refused and they had been granted discretionary leave to remain, in the case of the appellant in the first appeal, for periods of under one year, which, they contended, excluded them from appealing against the rejection of their asylum claims because s 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided that an appeal against the rejection of an asylum application could only be made where the person had been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year. Appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on the ground that ss 82 and 83 of the 2002 Act were incompatible with their rights to an effective remedy under art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting an withdrawing refugee status) were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decisions, holding that the scheme under s 83 of the 2002 Act satisfied the requirement of providing an effective remedy for an applicant who was refused asylum, but given leave to remain for a matter of months, and was accordingly, not incompatible with art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had sustained severe injuries when a collision occurred between the claimant's bicycle and the defendant's car, causing the claimant to fall sideways on to the road. The Queen's Bench Division held that, in the circumstances, primary liability was established but that the appropriate apportionment of fault for the claimant was 25 per cent. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The applicants applied for a parental order in relation to a child, A, who had been born in South Africa following a surrogacy arrangement. The Family Division, in making a parental order, held that the criteria in s 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 had been met. Further, it was clearly in A's lifelong interests that there was consistency as to her legal status in relation to those who cared for her across the relevant jurisdictions where she was likely to live, and that could only be achieved in the present jurisdiction by the court making the order sought. 

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.