Latest Cases

Practice – Judgment. The claimant had defaulted on a loan from a bank and receivers had been appointed in respect of its properties, which were charged to the bank (the properties). The claimant, with the receivers acting as agents, had entered into a contract for the sale of the properties to the defendant. The completion of the sale did not take place by the specified date and the claimant's solicitors served the defendant with notice to complete, under the sale contract. The defendant failed to complete within the specified time and the claimant rescinded the sale contract and the premises were sold to another party at auction. The claimant sought declarations that, among other things, the contract had been terminated by rescission. The claimant applied for summary judgment. The issue was whether a valid notice to complete had been served in accordance with the sale contract. The Chancery Division, in granting the application, held that the notice had been a valid notice to complete and that the claimant had been entitled to and had rescinded the sale contract. The proper 'party' to the sale contract who could give a notice to complete was the seller, the claimant, and not the claimant acting through the receivers. 

County court – Appeal. The claimant's application for permission to appeal against a decision of a district judge was dismissed as the circuit judge decided that the claimant's failure to comply with his earlier directions was not trivial and no reasonable excuse for it had been put forward. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held, inter alia, that the circuit judge had not purported to deal with the application on the merits; he had simply disposed of it peremptorily by way of a sanction. Further, whatever might be said about the merits of the judge's decision, it was not one that engaged the court's residual jurisdiction. 

Damages – Assessment. The claimant had her claim for clinical negligence compromised at 75% of the full value and was awaiting trial for an assessment of damages. There was an application before the court for an interim payment in the sum of £550,000. The Queen's Bench Division decided to award an interim payment of £383,858 as being reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. Following the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), that the defendant Secretary of State had breached her duty under s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, in not considering the best interests of the first claimant child as a primary consideration (see [2015] All ER (D) 243 (Apr)), the claimants applied for their return to the United Kingdom. The tribunal, in allowing the application, held that, considering the very unusual circumstances in the round, the Secretary of State should be ordered to take all reasonable steps to ensure the return of the claimants to the UK. 

Redundancy – Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the term 'establishment' in art 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive (EC) 98/59 (on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to collective redundancies) should be interpreted in the same way as the term in art (1)(a)(i) of that directive. Further, art 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Directive should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that laid down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reached or exceeded the threshold of 20 workers. 

Cohabitation – Unmarried couple. The parties' relationship broke down and the defendant excluded the claimant from a residential property. He denied that she had any claim to any of the three properties in which they had spent time together. In each case, the defendant had bought the property in his sole name. He also denied that the claimant had a half share in a business. The claimant brought proceedings, claiming that there was an agreement or understanding that she should have a half share in the properties. Her claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal on its facts. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 16(3) and (4) of Directive (EC) 2003/87 (establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Germany and Nordzucker AG concerning a decision imposing a penalty of €106,920 on the latter for infringement of its obligation to surrender sufficient greenhouse gas emission allowances to cover its emissions during the preceding year. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of his immigration detention since March 2012. The defendant Secretary of State accepted that she had failed to review the claimant's continued detention between March and July 2013, but contended that the claimant would still have been lawfully detained. The Administrative Court held that, given the claimant's failure to co-operate in establishing his identity, his detention was presently lawful, in accordance with the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983) and his release would not be ordered. Given the Secretary of State's concession, he was only entitled to nominal damages. 

Competition – Rules on competition. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the challenge by the Federation of Independent Practitioner Organisations under s 179 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to parts of a report into the provision of private healthcare produced by the Competition and Markets Authority . 

Practice – Civil litigation. The claimant builder carried out some remedial work for the defendant after a fire at the defendant's house. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant for the alleged underpayment. The defendant filed a counterclaim, alleging bad workmanship. He failed to comply with an unless order to serve and file with the court a re-pleaded counterclaim by a certain date in March 2015 and before the trial in July and the counterclaim was struck out. The defendant applied for relief from sanctions. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the application for relief from sanctions had to fail where there had been a serious and substantial breach of the order. However, the defendant was permitted to amend his defence to plead the material in the new draft of the counterclaim as a defence to the claimant's claim in respect of the alleged underpayment.