Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The appeal concerned what regard, if any, when considering an application to extend the time for appealing in a family case relating to children, the judge should have to the overall merits of the proposed appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the father's appeal, held that, in the present case, the judge had underestimated the underlying merits of the father's appeal, considering that the new grounds of appeal had been merely arguable when, in truth, they had been unanswerable. That flawed analysis had caused him to attribute no real weight to the underlying merits in his relief from sanction analysis. The present case was one where the court could see, without much investigation, that the proposed grounds of appeal were very strong and the merits had a significant part to play when it came to balancing the various factors that had to be considered. 

Company – Sale of company. The proceedings related to payment obligations arising out of the sale to the defendant company of a 50% interest in a company held by the claimant. The Commercial Court made a number of findings. Among other things, it allowed the claimant's application to join the Royal Bank of Canada as a co-claimant and allowed the defendant's claim against the claimant and a third party company. 

Trial – New trial. The trial of claims brought by the respondent against the appellant had proceeded in the respondent's absence. The appellant's application for a new trial and for a stay of execution on the judgment was dismissed, as was his appeal. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that it was not surprising that the trial judge had not accepted the appellant's explanation for having missed the trial. Further, the appellant's failure to produce any evidence to sustain his claim that he had a good defence had been fatal to any prospect of it succeeding. The judge had done his best on the basis of the available material and his approach, in the circumstances, was not to be faulted. 

Road traffic – Driver's records. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that requests from his business and its clients, pursuant to reg 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2742, would be refused unless the business complied with a condition that it should become a member of an accredited trade association (ATA), pursuant to his policy. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decision was not irrational. The Secretary of State had not imposed an unlawful and rigid pre-condition, and he had not surrendered his power under the Regulations to an ATA. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The applicant local authority sought a ruling on whether the care package for a patient amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 which referred to everyone having a right to 'liberty and security of person'. The Court of Protection held that in the circumstances, B was not being deprived of his liberty as the factual situation did not satisfy the acid test of 'I know it when I see it'. 

Landlord and tenant – Recovery of possession. The claimant, a fully mutual housing association, had granted the defendants a tenancy of a property on the terms of a tenancy agreement. The claimant sought possession of the property after significant rent arrears had accumulated on the defendants' account. The Chancery Division rejected the defendants' defences and made an order for possession. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Three young persons subject to orders under the Irish Mental Health system were transferred to an institution in the United Kingdom. The Health Service Executive of Ireland (the HSE) sought orders under s 63 of and Sch 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) recognising and enforcing the orders made by the Irish High Court for the detention of the young persons. The Court of Protection found that the Irish Orders had to be recognised and enforced. 

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The proceedings concerned a dispute between members of a family as to the beneficial ownership of a farm. Under wills made by the deceased father of the claimant in 1999, the farm was left on trust for the claimant subject to certain conditions. The claimant, relying on proprietary estoppel, contended that that was contrary to oral promises, made by his father and assented to by his mother, that he would inherit the farm. The Chancery Division held that the claimant had established a proprietary estoppel such that it would be unconscionable to deny the claimant an equity in the farm. However, the equity did not extend to a bungalow on the farm, which had been occupied by the claimant's siblings and mother. 

Licence – Failure of consideration. The parties contracted to enable them to carry out work in Indonesia relating to the raising of oil platforms. A dispute arose as to whether the defendant company had agreed to pay the claimant a licence fee. The defendant counterclaimed for unpaid invoices. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claim would be dismissed and the counterclaim allowed. 

European Union – Community institutions. The General Court of the European Union granted the applicant's request for annulment of the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) to refuse him access to certain documents. The General Court decided that Cedefop had erred in law by illegally rejecting the applicant's request for access to those documents on the basis of the exceptions under art 4(1)(b) and art 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents).