Latest Cases

Contract – Breach. The claimant, Thai airlines, claimed damages for breach of three contracts made with the defendant for the supply economy class seats for three groups of aircraft. The seats had not been delivered and, among other things, the claimant had sought to mitigate its losses and had allegedly incurred costs, among other things, of just under US$162m by leasing aircraft from another company. The defendant admitted liability, but, on the question of quantum, contended that account should be taken of the benefits the claimant had gained from leasing the aircraft and other mitigating steps it had taken. The Commercial Court held that, in assessing damages for breach of contract, credit had to be given for any monetary benefit, whether chosen or not, which the claimant had received or would receive as a result of an action reasonably taken to mitigate its loss. It ruled, among other things, that the claimant was entitled to recover the lease costs in the sum of US$107m. 

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. 

St Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla – Constitutional law. The appellants had obtained an interim injunction prohibiting the Governor-General from making a proclamation altering the constituency boundaries of St Christopher and Nevis until the determination of their legal challenge or further order. That order was discharged and the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal upheld that discharge on the basis that the interim injunction had come too late, because it held that the proclamation had already been made. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellants' appeal, held that the dissolution of the National Assembly had occurred before the impugned proclamation had been made. Accordingly, the proclamation, if valid, did not govern the election which followed that dissolution. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The applicant Irish nationals were arrested on suspicion of involvement in murder in Northern Ireland, under s 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and their detention was repeatedly extended. They complained of breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that there was no breach of art 5(3) of the Convention. The applicants had been brought promptly before a judicial officer who had had adequate jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of their detention and the power to order their release. Further, it had not been necessary that any consideration be given to their conditional release. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, challenging their arrests and search warrants, issued by the second defendant and executed by the first defendant National Crime Agency (the NCA). The Divisional Court held that the arrests had been lawful. However, the search warrants had been unlawful and to an extent further than that conceded by the NCA. Accordingly, it was ordered to deliver up the seized material, and deliver up or destroy all copies, schedules and other work product derived from the seized material. The NCA was further prohibited from using the material or anything derived from it. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Spain for the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 (implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements), thereby rejecting the pleas in law relied on by Spain.