Latest Cases

Bank – Loan. The claimant Russian bank entered into a loan agreement with a Russian company, under which it granted a loan to the company. The company defaulted on the loan and subsequently entered into bankruptcy proceedings in Russia. The bank brought proceedings against the defendants, who it contended had, at the material times, had control of the company and had allegedly caused the company to become insolvent and to cause it loss. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the bank's claim, held that, on the evidence, the bank's case on causation failed and where the bank's loss had not been proved with the necessary certainty and specificity. Further, the bank's claim under the Russian Civil Code could not be brought until the conclusion of the bankruptcy process, which had yet to occur. 

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. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant appealed against the judge's decision, refusing her application for judicial review of the defendant clinical commissioning group's refusal to pay for a private flat in which she would receive NHS continuing healthcare. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-Funded Nursing Care 2012 did not, in circumstances where a patient was receiving NHS continuing healthcare in his own home, generally contemplate that the NHS would be responsible for defraying the costs of that accommodation. Accordingly, the judge had correctly concluded that the framework had not dictated the outcome sought by the claimant. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The appellant was a taxi driver who had his vehicle seized by the respondent local authority for non-payment of council tax. The vehicle was returned in due course as it was a 'tool-of-the-trade' for the appellant. The appellant brought a claim for damages for loss of profit due to its retention. The authority brought a counterclaim for storage charges in respect of the vehicle. At trial the judge found that the appellant had failed to comply with the time limit for service of a witness statement and refused relief from sanctions. He also struck out the appellant's case on the pleadings and gave judgment for the local authority on the counterclaim. The appellant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the judge had been correct to refuse relief from sanctions however judgment for the local authority on the counterclaim with regard to the storage of vehicle charges would be overturned. 

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. 

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 .