Latest Cases

Costs – Orders for costs. It was common ground that, overall, the defendants had been successful in previous proceedings (see[2015] All ER (D) 233 (Apr)) and that the starting point was that they were entitled to their costs. The present proceedings concerned the extent to which a deduction should be made from those costs to reflect issues on which the defendants had been unsuccessful and the amount the claimants should be ordered to pay on account of the defendants' costs. The Patents Court held that, in the circumstances, the claimants would be ordered to pay 75% of the defendants' costs. As to payment on account, a reasonable figure was 55%, that was 55% of 75% of the defendants' total bill. 

Costs – Order for costs. In previous proceedings, the claimant, Network Rail, had obtained judgment on all issues of principle, save for one minor issue. Network Rail sought indemnity costs and interest on the damages awarded. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the defendants would pay their own and the claimant's costs of the proceedings on a standard basis. The costs reserved from the first case management conference would be costs in the case and would be borne by the defendants, given the final costs order. Interest would run from the dates when the expenditure and losses had been incurred until judgment, with no gap, at the agreed interest rates. 

Compulsory purchase – Compensation. The Homes and Communities Agency appealed against the valuation of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), awarding the claimant compensation in the sum of £746,000 in respect of the compulsory acquisition of two plots of land comprised within a compulsory purchase order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, set aside the decision of the tribunal and remitted the assessment of compensation back to the tribunal. 

Arbitration – Jurisdiction. The parties contracted for the purchase of iron ore fines. A dispute arose and was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made a decision on jurisdiction, which the claimant company did not challenge. He subsequently made a decision on liability. The claimant sought to challenge jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's applications, holding that it was not open for it to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. 

Deed – Rectification. The claimants sought to vary the provisions of a deed of variation, so as to take advantage of changes in the law and make it effective for inheritance tax and capital gains tax purposes. The Chancery Division held that the claim would be allowed, although any reference to the provisions of s 62, and its relevant subsections, of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 would be removed. 

Bank – Securities. The Chancery Division considered whether the defendant issuers, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Lloyds Banking Group plc, were entitled to redeem certain enhanced capital note in advance of their respective maturity dates. That turned on whether a capital disqualification event (CDE) had occurred. The court considered the terms of relevant trust deed and made a declaration that a CDE had not occurred. 

Divorce – Foreign Divorce. The wife applied to the court seeking that the decrees nisi and absolute of divorce issued by the High Court of Malaya at Shah in favour of the respondent husband be refused recognition in England and Wales. The Family Division held that having regard to s 51(3)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986, the court in its discretion would refuse recognition of the Malaysian decree nisi and the wife would also be allowed to proceed with the decree nisi in the United Kingdom Court. 

Partnership – Partnership property. A dispute had arisen as to whether a partnership agreement had been terminated and whether the first defendant partner had been entitled to sell the lease and business. The court ordered that the first claimant partner be allowed to re-enter the premises and run the business by himself pending resolution of the dispute. The Chancery Division dismissed the first defendant's application to set aside or vary that order. It was not clear that the lease was not partnership property, as alleged by the first defendant. The judge had been correct to find that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the claimant running the business by himself. Finally, the allegation that the claimant was in breach of the partnership agreement would have to be determined in due course and the contention that the terms of the order had been breached was more appropriately dealt with as a matter of enforcement rather than variation. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Planning Court held that an appeal against an enforcement notice made under s 174(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (ground f), on the basis that any step specified in an enforcement notice exceeded what was necessary to remedy an injury to amenity caused by the relevant breach of planning control, could not be entertained when: (i) there was no appeal under s 174(2)(a) of the Act that planning permission should be granted; and (ii) the planning objections which the step addressed were not limited to any injury to amenity. Therefore, whether an appeal lay on that basis under ground f depended upon the nature of the planning objection that the step sought to remedy. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The defendant solicitors had been in practice together until they were declared bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy of the first defendant applied for an order that time costs and expenses, which had been incurred in preserving files and records of the practice, reconciling the client accounts of the practice and incidental costs, should be deducted from the client accounts of the practice. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the court did not have jurisdiction to make the order sought because, among other things, the first defendant, notwithstanding being made bankrupt, had been under an unbroken and continuing duty to manage the client accounts and client monies in accordance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules and that obligation could not be, and was not, displaced by his bankruptcy and could be, and was, displaced only when the Solicitors Regulation Authority decided to intervene in the practice.