Latest Cases

Practice – Injunction. In the course of proceedings concerning a claim alleging deceit and misrepresentation, among other things, a freezing order had been granted, without notice, against the defendant company, which was alleged to have deceitfully promoted a scheme, which the claimants had invested in. The defendant applied to discharge the injunction or for summary judgment on the claim. The Chancery Division held that there were grounds for discharging the freezing order where there had been material non-disclosure and misrepresentations at the without notice hearing. However, it granted the claimants an opportunity to adduce a further amended pleading and, accordingly, declined to grant summary judgment. 

Extradition – Passage of time. Sheriff Court: In a case in which the Slovakian authorities sought the respondent's extradition to serve an 8-month prison sentence for 'joyriding' when disqualified from driving in July 2004, he having been convicted of the offence in absentia in September 2009, the court held that 

Will – Validity – Holograph will or writing– Testamentary effect. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal by a petitioner who sought special warrant to issue confirmation as executor nominate of her deceased sister qua her residuary legatee, the court held that the sheriff had erred in refusing the application and finding that the holograph will or writing at deceased's hand which the petitioner relied upon lacked the necessary testamentary intention; the meaning of the document in the sense of it being a will was obvious and unequivocally set out the deceased's wishes and testamentary intentions. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant had, unsuccessfully, sought judicial review of the defendant planning authority's decision to proceed to a referendum on a local development plan and against the conclusion that a strategic environmental assessment had not been required. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/767, on its true construction, did permit allocation of sites for particular development in national development plans. Further, it could not be said that the author of the screening report had failed to take the positive environmental effects of the development plan into account. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The claimant firm brought an action seeking payment for outstanding invoices in relation to professional services provided to the defendant in relation to a project to develop a property in Lancashire. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging professional negligence. Shortly before the trial, the claimant applied for specific disclosure and permission to rely upon the expert evidence of a forensic accountant. The Chancery Division dismissed the application where the matter in respect of which specific disclosure and expert evidence was sought, was not a key issue in the context of the case, and considering the lateness of the application. 

Adoption – Order. The applicants applied to adopt a child, C. During the course of the pregnancy and around the time of C's birth, they paid sums of money to the parents, various sums of which were subsequently repaid. The Family Division held that it was in C's welfare best interests that he be made the subject of an adoption order in favour of the applicants. There had been no attempt to hide the arrangement from the authorities because the arrangement, although contravening s 92 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, had been a genuine and sincere arrangement, and not in any sense a commercial arrangement which was contrary to the interests of C. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division previously ordered the claimant's copyright infringement claim to be struck out unless he filed proper particulars and claimed damages less than £30,000. The defendants invited the court to confirm their understanding that the claimant had not complied with the unless order and so the action stood automatically struck out. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's claim remained for £2,560,000 calculated on a grossly inflated basis in breach of the unless order. It further refused relief from sanctions. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The judge awarded the claimant damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of the defendant's negligence in the operation of its Hyper Jump. The defendant appealed against her finding of liability and quantum. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusions she had on the evidence before her. It would not be appropriate to interfere with her factual findings as to liability or her assessment of quantum. 

Land – Charge. The claimant bank had a registered charged over the first defendant's property. The second defendant claimed to have leased the property with an unregistered option to buy it from the first defendant. The bank sought declarations concerning the priority of its legal charge over the property. The Chancery Division held that the bank was entitled to the declarations sought where, at the time the charge had been executed, it had had no actual or constructive knowledge of any interest in the property other than that of the first defendant and where the option, even if genuine, had not been validly exercised prior to the end of the lease. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant, a six year old boy, suffered serious injuries following an accident in a swimming pool in which he was found at the bottom of the pool but later resuscitated. The Queen's Bench Division held that the lifeguards on duty had failed to identify the claimant as a child at risk had they done so they would have registered his disappearance and immediately searched to find him and remove him from the water. There was a causal link between that breach of duty and the injuries the claimant had sustained and he was entitled to judgment accordingly.