Latest Cases

Bank – Transaction. The respondent brought a claim against the appellant bank, alleging dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and a proprietary right to the proceeds of sale in respect of an art collection, which had been owned by her deceased father, but had been sold by her sister's friend. The proceeds could be traced to the bank through a number of transactions. The Chief Justice dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal of Gibraltar held in favour of the respondent. The issue was whether the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. The Privy Council, dismissing the bank's appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal for the most part that the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. 

Immigration – Asylum. The defendant Secretary of State's letters, refusing the claimant's application to revoke his deportation order, stated that no right of appeal arose because the claimant's submissions had not amounted to a fresh claim. The claimant sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that submissions purporting to be a human rights claim did not, without more, trigger a right of appeal and para 353 of the Immigration Rules provided the mechanism to determine whether they amounted to a claim. As the claimant's submissions had been determined not to have been a claim, there was no decision and, thus, no right of appeal. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to refuse him public housing on the basis that he lacked capacity. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was bound by authority to the effect that that there was no purpose in making an offer of accommodation to a person so disabled that he was unable to comprehend or evaluate the offer. Further, under the Housing Act 1996 and the National Assistance Act 1948, a need for accommodation was a prerequisite. As the claimant continued to reside with his father, his need for accommodation was met. 

Limitation of action – Extension of time limit. The claimant claimed damages for personal injury alleged to have been inflicted upon her as a result of sexual abuse committed against her by the defendant, from about 1974 and 1982. In 2013, at a trial of preliminary issues, the judge dismissed the action, having refused to exercise the court's discretion, under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, to order that the provisions of s 11 of the Act should not apply. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held that the judge had not erred in law and he had been entitled to reach the overall conclusion that he had in deciding whether to exercise the discretion. 

Insolvency – Administration order. The applicant, in his capacity as a creditor of the company for the purposes of para 12(1)(c) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, sought an administration order to take effect retrospectively from November 2010. The court was being asked to make a retrospective order which would cure the fact of the void appointments of the purported present liquidators, by casting back over four years and validating the actions of those individuals, not as liquidators, but as administrators, in the intervening period, with a view to the company being moved by those freshly appointed administrators into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, the only appropriate outcome for the present administration application was to make an order for the compulsory winding-up of the company. 

Practice – Appeal. In deciding whether the appellant should be allowed time for appealing a settlement order under art 43 of Council Regulation EC 44/2001 (the Judgments Regulation), the Queen's Bench Division held that there was no general power to extend the mandatory two month time limit for appealing. The court was obliged to enforce that time limit strictly, subject only to the residual power to extend a mandatory time limit in the rare case where its application would impair the very essence of the right of appeal. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the employee's claims of disability discrimination and protected disclosure detrimental treatment on the basis that the employee had not complied with the requirements of the statutory grievance procedure in respect of both claims. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the employee's appeal to the limited extent that the tribunal ought to have considered itself bound by the previous pre-hearing review ruling that the pre-termination disability complaints had been sufficiently 'grieved'. However, the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that those complaints had been time-barred and failed on that separate jurisdictional ground. Since all the other grounds of appeal had failed, the EAT dismissed the appeal. 

Adoption – Order. The applicant was the biological father of a child, aged seven months, who had been born to him through surrogacy arrangements made with the applicant's mother and through a fertility clinic. The Family Court granted the order for adoption where the arrangement had been entirely lawful under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and where the court was satisfied that the child's lifelong welfare needs would be met by the court making the order. 

Judgment – Enforcement. In earlier proceedings, the court found against a number of the defendants (together, the Ruperti defendants). The Ruperti defendants had difficulties in paying sums owed to a group of claimants. A settlement agreement was established. The Commercial Court considered various issues arising from the settlement agreement and made rulings on its application. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Mr Chafiq Ayadi for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban), in so far as that act concerned Mr Ayadi.