Latest Cases

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. 

Immigration – Appeal. The claimant charity issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Fast Track Rules (the FTR) contained in the Schedule to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604, were ultra vires. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the FTR were ultra vires. What made the FTR structurally unfair was the serious procedural disadvantage which came from the abbreviated timetable and curtailed case management powers, together with the imposition of that disadvantage on the appellant by the respondent to the appeal. 

Immigration – Education. The defendant Secretary of State found that a proxy test-taker had taken the claimant Bangladeshi national's English language tests and issued a notice of removal. The claimant sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that no improper purpose had been established. Further, an out of country appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) was a demonstrably superior mechanism for the present species of challenge and that fact rendered the claimant's further procedural unfairness ground of challenge moot, as that tribunal could consider that complaint. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants robbed the victim of his phone and jacket and forced him to withdraw £210 from a cash machine, during the course of a robbery in which the victim was pushed to the ground and struck with a dog chain. The defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 16 months and two years' detention respectively. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division gave the Attorney General leave to refer the sentences as being unduly lenient and substituted sentences of 32 months and three years' detention. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Taxation. Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH (KLE) brought proceedings against the Principal Customs Office, Osnabruck, concerning a levy on nuclear fuel for which KLE was liable under German law in respect of the use by that company of fuel assemblies in the nuclear reactor of that power station. In the course of those proceedings, the Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 107 and 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), art 14(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2003/96, art 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive (EC) 2008/118, and various other provisions of EU law. 

Company – Insolvency. The proceedings concerned a company (the company) in creditors' voluntary liquidation. The applicant creditor of the company applied for an order, under r 4.70(2) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, varying or setting aside the decision of the first respondent liquidator and chairman at a meeting of the company's creditors to admit the applicant as a creditor for voting purposes for a lower sum than the applicant contended should have been admitted, with the result that a resolution for the appointment of a joint administrator was defeated. The Companies Court, in allowing the application, held that S had erred in treating a liquidated claim (the moiety) as an unliquidated claim and in the application of the Rules. The moiety claim was a provable debt under the Rules and the applicant had, on the evidence, established its claim. It had not been open to the respondents to use a sum by way of set off against the moiety claim. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1(2)(a) and 5 of Directive (EC) 1999/44 (on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees). The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Faber and the Hazet Garage concerning a claim for compensation for the damage caused by the lack of conformity which had allegedly marred the vehicle that Ms Faber had purchased at that garage. 

Solicitor – Partnership. On termination of a solicitors' partnership, the claimant sought payment of around £150,000 which he claimed stood to his credit in his capital account. Although there was no written partnership agreement, the judge held that, on the documentary evidence, and preferring the claimant's evidence, the capital payment was due. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal as there had been no abandonment by the claimant of his pleaded case and the judge had been entitled to say that the documents had 'strongly' supported his finding that an agreement for the payment had been reached between the parties.