Latest Cases

Sale of land – Condition. The Chancery Division considered the interpretation of a contract for the purchase of a property. The defendant sought to rescind the contract between the parties, on the ground that an event of default had occurred, as defined by the contract. The claimant submitted that, since a term in the contract was to be taken as meaning that time was of the essence, it was not possible for the rescission to occur. The court held that, on the true construction of the contract, time had been of the essence, and so the claimant was entitled to succeed. 

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Directive (EC) 2008/115 (on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals) in particular, arts 6(1) and 8(1), read in conjunction with art 4(2) and (3), should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provided, in the event of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of that state, depending on the circumstances, for either a fine or removal, since the two measures were mutually exclusive. 

Contract – Penalty. The defendant had been charged for overstaying the maximum free period of parking at a car park operated by the claimant operator. The county court judge had allowed the operator to recover the charge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held that nothing in the circumstances of the contract between the parties required or allowed the application of the rules about contractual penalties to invalidate the provision under which the judge below had held the defendant liable. Further, there had been no want of good faith or significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties so to have breached the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, SI 1999/2083. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of art 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person had constructed was to be the purchase price, at the time the application was made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics were similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it was irrelevant whether part of the purchase price was represented by interim interest. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal bought by Mr Anbouba by which he had requested that the court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of various decisions and regulations made by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as his name appeared on the lists of the persons to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied. 

Practice – Striking out. The present proceedings arose from a dispute over a joint venture agreement originally made in 1981. Following attempts at arbitration and a decision by the Supreme Court, the claimant, H, brought a fresh claim. The Commercial Court allowed an application by the defendant, J, to strike out the claim, on the grounds that, in bringing the present proceedings, H had vexed J with litigation twice in circumstances that amounted to harassment of J. 

Company – Insurance company. In September 2007, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) suspended the registration of the appellant company, Rainbow, as an insurer for general insurance and life insurance business, and appointed an administrator over its business. Rainbow appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council held that the FSC had not acted unfairly towards Rainbow in the relevant period, and hence its appeal was dismissed. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The son of the patient was made her deputy. The Office of Public Guardian applied under s 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for an order revoking the appointment of CC as the patient's deputy. CC opposed the application. The Court of Protection dismissed the application and found that was impressed with the explanations of CC regarding payment and expenditure. 

Criminal law – Obstructing course of justice. The offenders were convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice in circumstances where the victim, who had learning difficulties, had been persuaded to spent a twenty four hour period with two of the offenders on the day he had been due to attend court to give evidence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the sentences of between 12 and 16 months' imprisonment had not been unduly lenient. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. SM executed Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of her daughter and grandson. The Office of Public Guardian (OPG) applied to revoke the LPA. The Court of Protection having regard to s 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, revoked the LPA and appointed a deputy panel to act as SM's deputy for property and affairs.