Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Lease. Under a lease plus agreement (LPA), a community centre was developed and let by the claimant, as landlord, to the defendant, as tenant. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the operation of the payment provisions, which were contained in the LPA. The claimant applied to the court for a determination of the issues in dispute. The Technological and Construction Court made declarations concerning the true interpretation of the LPA. 

Practice – Summary judgment and strike out. The claimant and companies related to him brought proceedings against the defendant personal representative of CG, who was deceased. They contended that CG had caused them to enter into a settlement agreement, concluding a dispute, by means of false representations. The Commercial Court considered whether the claims as presently made and proposed to be made had a real prospect of success. It struck out a number of the claims as having no real prospect of success. 

Income Tax – Relief. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeals by partners in two partnerships against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had refused the partners loss relief in relation to their expenditure on certain films on the basis that they had not been carrying on a trade in the relevant periods. The tribunal further rejected the partners' applications for judicial review. 

Competition – Merger. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had found there to have been a relevant merger situation under s 22(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 arising from the appellant's acquisition of cross-channel ferries from SeaFrance's liquidator and its employment of the majority of former SeaFrance employees, as a consequence of a statutory indemnity payment to the appellant for employing those redundant workers. The decision was upheld by the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the CMA's finding that upon such mass re-employment there had been in reality a transfer, or a transfer 'in effect' by SeaFrance, had been irrationally wrong and one that could not properly have been made. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to decide their applications for settlement and indefinite leave to remain for nine years. They subsequently challenged her decisions on their applications. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State's delay had given rise to substantial breaches of her obligation to respect each claimant's private and family life for which they were entitled to substantial damages. Further, she had erred in considering the second and third claimants' spent convictions in determining their applications. The first claimant having died before judgment, permission was granted for an order to carry on his claims. 

Immigration – Workers. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to revoke its Tier 2 sponsor licence and to maintain that revocation. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been justified in concluding that the claimant's response to her request for information addressing identified issues had been deficient and why the presaged revocation of licence would go ahead. Further, her decision had not been irrational, and given the litany and seriousness of the claimant's various breaches, immediate termination had been obvious and axiomatic. 

Health – Health care. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's decision to uphold the conclusions in her final report on the basis of erroneous treatment of a legal issue. The Administrative Court held that there had been no error of law in the report, as the Ombudsman had not been obliged, and it had not been necessary, to consider the issue in order to take a view on whether she had had sufficient evidence before her to have concluded that the interested party had been guilty of maladministration. 

Executry estate – Wrongful administration of estate. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuer sued the former executors of her former husband's executry estate, alleging wrongful administration of the estate, the court concluded that the defenders were not in breach of any duty towards the estate such that they should be found personally liable to the pursuer as judicial factor. 

Teaching – Professional competence. Court of Session: Refusing a teacher's appeal against a decision of the General Teaching Council for Scotland's Disciplinary Panel, finding that she had fallen short of the standards expected of a registered teacher, was unfit to teach, and that her name should be removed from the Register of Teachers, the court rejected all the appellant's grounds of appeal, including contentions that the panel failed to explain the reasoning behind their findings, failed to deal with the evidence properly, giving a decision which did not rest on a reasonable foundation, and failed to record the evidence properly, demonstrating bias or apparent bias and/or a failure to discharge their duty to consider all the evidence. 

Company – Administration. In the course of proceedings concerning the administration of companies connected to the Lehman Brothers group, the Companies Court made a number of rulings to determine the claims that might be made against a surplus of assets before any return to the creditors. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal against two of those rulings and upholding the remainder, considered, inter alia, the ranking in the administration of unsubordinated debt, whether currency conversion claims were non-provable liabilities, whether accrued rights to statutory interest under r 2.88(7) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 survived the transition from administration to liquidation and whether the obligation of contributories, under s 74(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, extended to statutory interest and non-provable liabilities.