Latest Cases

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. 

Claim form – Service. The claimants brought proceedings alleging that they had been mis-sold certain bonds. The Chancery Division held that the claimants had not validly served the claim form on the first defendant bank (IAPB) in accordance with CPR 6.9(2), in circumstances where IAPB was not carrying out its business in the United Kingdom. The claim against its parent company, the second defendant, was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) on the ground that the particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. 

Environment – Protection. The defendant company pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to regs 38(1)(a) and 39(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, following the discharge of untreated sewage from its pumping station. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in upholding the fine of £250,000 imposed by a recorder, held, among other things, that the court would have had no hesitation in upholding a very substantially higher fine. The court gave guidance on the approach to be adopted under the Sentencing Council's definitive guideline on environmental offences in respect of very large commercial organisations. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Yoo Holdings Ltd against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Yoo Holdings Ltd, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'YOO' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

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. 

Personal injury – Liability – Breach of statutory duty – Negligence. Sheriff Court: In an action for damages by a prison officer who suffered a neck injury when taking part in a training exercise involving a simulated prison riot, the court concluded that the pursuer had proved on the balance of probabilities that she was injured in the way that she claimed, however she had failed to establish a breach of any of the various health and safety regulations founded upon, and her common law case of negligence also failed. 

Prisoner – Human rights. Sheriff Court: In an action for damages under s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court upheld the pursuer's preliminary plea and granted declarator that the defenders' use of restraint while taking him from prison to attend three hospital appointments in 2013 was incompatible with his rights, under arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and to respect for his private life. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant, through his mother as litigation friend applied for an injunction to restrain the first defendant father and the second defendant publisher from publishing a book about the first defendant's experiences of being sexually abused as a child and his subsequent battles with mental illness. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application on the basis, amongst others, that under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a claim by a child seeking to restrain his father from talking about his (the father's) life largely before the child was born was misconceived. 

Education – Local education authority. The defendant local education authority proposed to amend its policy so that pupils attending faith schools would be entitled to free public transport only if the relevant distance criteria were met and no suitable alternative school, including a non-faith school, was located within two or three miles of home. The claimants, who were affiliated with faith schools, sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that black and minority ethnic origin children suffered a particular disadvantage as a consequence of the amended policy, which was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Further, the report relied on in making the decision had misstated the law.