Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Petition. The Chancery Division made a bankruptcy order in respect of the respondent, having considered issues of jurisdiction, service and security. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellants had all applied for accommodation on the basis that they were in priority need, under s 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996. Their applications were refused and the appellants were unsuccessful before the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that, in order to decide whether an applicant fell within s 189(1)(c) of the Act, an authority or reviewing officer should compare him with an ordinary person if made homeless, not an ordinary actual homeless person. Further, when deciding if an applicant was 'vulnerable', one had to take into account such services and support that would be available to him he were homeless. It did not matter, at least in principle, whether the support was provided pursuant to a legal obligation. However, the question whether there was a legal obligation on the third party to provide the support could sometimes be relevant, in that it might be said to be intrinsically more likely that a person would continue to provide support if he had a legal obligation to do so. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The claimant local planning authority challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, varying an enforcement notice issued to the second defendant to require compliance with previously granted planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that it could not clearly be determined that the issue of whether the prior permission had still been extant had been addressed explicitly and an unambiguous decision reached. Further, the inspector had not had the power to act as he had in the particular circumstances. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The second respondent husband was made bankrupt twice. His wife, the first respondent, made an application under s 375 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the 1986 Act) to set aside the court's order for sale of the matrimonial home (the property) and for a warrant for possession on the property to be vacated. The court: (i) declared that the second charge on the property be paid first from the interest in the property of the trustee, and (ii) set aside the possession order and the warrant for possession but gave the trustee permission to apply at such time as the values of the property and the legal charges were such as to entitle the trustee to a portion of the proceeds of sale of the property. The trustee appealed. The Chancery Division held that had been correct to find that the wife had been entitled to the equity of exoneration. However, in the circumstances, the court would limit the equity of exoneration to sums loaned in respect of the acquisition of the husband's half share plus interest. 

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. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 4(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society) had to be interpreted as meaning that it allowed a holder of an exclusive right to distribute a protected work to prevent an offer for sale or a targeted advertisement of the original or a copy of that work, even if it was not established that that advertisement had given rise to the purchase of the protected work by an EU buyer, in so far as that that advertisement invited consumers of the member state in which that work was protected by copyright to purchase it.