Latest Cases

Contract – Breach. The claimants purchased land and a business from the defendants. They brought proceedings, claiming that the defendants had made misstatements regarding the flow of sewage on the land, and had breached their contract. The Chancery Division held that the claims were made out as a matter of liability in relation both to misrepresentation and, to the extent of the business sale agreement, in breach of contract. 

Company – Director. The claimant Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills brought proceedings against the defendants, who were the directors of a company that imported plywood and sheet materials. He submitted that the defendants had made a number of false representations regarding the company's finances. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the defendants were unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. A disqualification order would be made against either of them. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the defendant local planning authority's decision, granting the interested party planning permission for a photovoltaic solar park. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the planning permission had been clear, unambiguous and consistent. The authority had taken account of all relevant material considerations and there had been no gap in the legislative framework following a change in the legislation. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision returning his application for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) student as invalid. The Administrative Court held that, despite the Secretary of State's delay in serving her summary and detailed grounds of defence, the public interest lay in permitting her to respond to the claim. It dismissed the claimant's application, as it was commenced one year and four month's out of time, and there had been no unlawfulness in the consideration of his claim or in the decision to reject it as invalid. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners had been correct to issue a closure notice treating the taxpayer's out of court settlement sum as being chargeable to income tax under Case VI of Sch D to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and as not being a capital receipt. Consequently, the taxpayer's appeal against the FTT's decision was dismissed. 

Education – Teacher. On the appellant's retirement from his position as a senior lecturer with the respondent university, an issue arose as to whether he had achieved the requisite number of years of service to entitle him to supplementary pension benefits. The Supreme Court of Jamaica had allowed the appellant's claim, but the Court of Appeal had allowed the university's appeal. The Privy Council allowed the appeal. While the appellant had not commenced service on the date on which he had contended, he had, on a proper construction of the terms of his contract of engagement, accrued the necessary level of service to entitle him to the supplementary benefits. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant was a transgender prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for sexual offences she had committed when she was an 18-year-old male. She sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to provide the opportunity to do work specifically linked to sexual offending. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not breached: (i) her public law duty; (ii) the duties under arts 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or (iii) the duties under ss 19, 29 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010. 

Power of attorney – Challenge. The claimant had challenged a power of attorney made in favour of the first and second defendants. In those proceedings, he sought summary judgment and a worldwide injunction restraining the first defendant from acting on the power of attorney. The Chancery Division dismissed both applications. It was arguable that the claimant had not had standing to bring the claim nor had he joined all relevant parties to the proceedings. Consequently, the first defendant had a realistic prospect of success on the claim and the court accepted her undertaking not to use the power of attorney in the United Kingdom pending judgment or further order. 

Settlement – Trust. In the course of a family dispute over the control of the Sherlock Holmes museum, the parties met and, later, agreed a settlement for a declaration of trust. A dispute arose as to when the order had been made and what its effects were. The Chancery Division held that the claimants were entitled to declarations on the claim that the declarations of trust dated 11 April 2013 were valid and binding. However, that was all the entitlement that had been established. 

European union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Bora Creations, SL (Bora), against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between Beauté Prestige International, and Bora regarding the registration by Bora of the word 'essence' as a Community trade mark.