Latest Cases

Contract – Terms. The claimant, a major European executive air charter operation, had provided aircraft management services to the defendant. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of an aircraft management and charter agreement between the claimant and the defendant, the claimant was entitled to judgment for the amount of charter incentive payments to which it had claimed to be entitled. The defendant was entitled to set off some, but not all, of the sums claimed from outstanding invoices in respect of management fees and operating costs. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant had paid £50,000 to a company run by the first defendant, intending to invest in the company in return for shares. He brought a claim for damages for breach of contract. It was common ground that, if there was no binding contract, the claimant was entitled, as restitution, to the return of his money, together with an award for the 'time value' of the money. The Chancery Division held that the claimant had advanced £50,000 to the company in anticipation of an agreement to invest in return for shares, but he had failed to satisfy the court that any agreement had been concluded between the parties. However, the claimant had a restitutionary claim against the company for the return of his £50,000 and for the time value of the money. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) had presented a petition for a sum in excess of £7.7m in respect of a company for unpaid VAT. A provisional liquidator was appointed by the court to take possession of and protect the company's assets. The Revenue brought committal proceedings against the defendants, contending that three payments made out of the company's funds to a company in Dubai subsequent to the appointment of the provisional liquidator were made in contempt of court. The defendants admitted contempt. The Chancery Division, applying settled principles to the facts, sentenced them each to six months' imprisonment. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (easyGroup) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup concerning the application by easyGroup to register a figurative sign depicting the words 'easyAir-tours' as a Community trade mark. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants sought a wasted costs order against the solicitor and counsel that had represented the unsuccessful eighth defendant in contempt proceedings. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the policy of the respondent Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain indefinitely the DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of a person convicted of a recordable offence was in breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, that the policy was not in breach of art 8 of the Convention, as it was within the margin of appreciation and proportionate. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse them leave to remain as Tier 1 Entrepreneurs, relying on a legitimate expectation said to arise from a conversation over the Secretary of State's helpline. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that there was no doubt that the claimants had not had a legitimate expectation that their application would be granted. They had been given conflicting information, the conversation relied on had been incorrect and the telephone operator had had no authority to assure the outcome. 

Contract – Construction of contract. The claimant investment bank was appointed, under contracts, as the financial adviser of the defendant, which owned, through its subsidiaries, the rights to develop and exploit mineral assets in Sierra Leone. The claimant brought a claim for the payment of fees allegedly due under the contracts. The judge held that, on the facts and the true construction of the contracts, the claimant was entitled to the payment of some of the fees sought. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal as the judge had not given the relevant contractual term the correct interpretation. 

Maintenance of action – Champerty. In the course of proceedings, the defendant, B, applied to strike out the claim on the basis that it was champertous and that the claimant limited liability partnership, JEB, had been created as part of a scheme to cause maximum litigation inconvenience to B and to shield members of the partnership from adverse costs orders. The Chancery Division held that the claim did not offend the public policy aimed at protecting the legal process, and B's application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant entry clearance officer's refusal of entry clearance as a Tier 4 (General) student based on his interview answers. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the decision-making process culminating in the refusal of the claimant's application had been manifestly unfair and the decision had been tainted by irrationality. It followed that the Case Worker Guidance relating to Tier 4 interviews and the genuine student rule had been breached to that extent.