Latest Cases

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. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimant issued a claim in 2012, seeking a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of shares in an English company, which owned valuable land in Belarus. The third defendant (D3) applied to be joined to the proceedings in 2014 and counterclaimed for a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the shares and that they were held on trust for him by the second defendant. D3 applied for security of costs. The master dismissed the application, among other things, on the grounds that D3 should have applied to join the proceedings as sooner and that there had been a delay in making the application. The Chancery Division upheld the master's decision on the grounds of delay, notwithstanding that it disagreed with other aspects of the master's decision, including in respect of her decision that the 'Crabtree principle' applied to the case. 

Power of attorney – Enduring power of attorney. The Court of Protection reconsidered two orders it had made on the papers. The first was an order revoking HS's enduring power of attorney, in which she had appointed her former partner to be her attorney, and the second was an order appointing the local authority to be HS's deputy for property and affairs. The court held that, in the circumstances, the appointment of the local authority as deputy had been inapt and the appointment of a panel deputy would be completely disproportionate. An order was made appointing HS's son to be his mother's deputy, in place of the authority. 

Citizenship – United Kingdom citizenship. The claim raised the important issue of whether the defendant Secretary of State could refuse a child's application for British nationality where the child met all the requirements, but as a result of destitution, could not pay the required fee. The Administrative Court held that, in refusing the claimant's application, the Secretary of State had not acted outside her powers. Further, she had not breached her duty, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to respect family and private life or her duty, under art 14, read with art 8, of the Convention, by discriminating on the ground of impecuniosity. 

Land – Owner. The parties, who were five brothers, owned a number of properties and businesses. A dispute arose as to the ownership of the property and businesses. The Chancery Division held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimant brothers' submission that the family had agreed to work together in business and build up assets in common, rather than the defendant brother's contention that each property and business was beneficially owned by the brother who was its registered owner. 

Children and young persons – Court proceedings. The mother removed the child of the parties' relationship from Texas where she had been living to the United Kingdom, without the father's permission. The father commenced proceedings under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Family Division held that the child's removal from the State of Texas was unlawful. There was no sustainable basis on the evidence for establishing either, or indeed any, of the exceptions in the Convention to a mandatory return. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Petropars Iran Co and other companies for annulment of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as those acts concerned them. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother applied for leave to revoke care and placement orders made in respect of her two children following the manslaughter of another child by the mother's partner. Although finding a change in circumstances in regard to the mother, the Family Division nevertheless, in its discretion decided not grant the mother leave on the basis that the application to revoke the order was unlikely to be successful. 

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant, a British citizen, brought a claim for personal injuries in respect of an accident that occurred whilst working in Antwerp. The claim against the first defendant employer was brought in breach of statutory duty and negligence. The fourth and fifth defendants were the main contractors responsible for the project and comprising a joint venture under Belgian law. Those defendants were domiciled in Belgium (the Belgian defendants). The Belgian defendants sought a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction over them in relation to the claim The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim on the basis of Regulation 44/2001. 

Copyright – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held that the defendants were jointly liable for infringing the claimant's copyright in its 'Red Berry design' by the importation into the United Kingdom of Blossom ceramics and the sale of those products. The claimant was entitled to damages and interest.