Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. In earlier proceedings, the claimant company had succeeded against the defendants in a claim concerning breach of a restraint of trade covenant. Following that judgment, the Mercantile Court ruled that, among other things, the defendants were to pay the costs of the claim on an indemnity basis and that 90% of the costs were to be paid on account. 

Practice – Preliminary point of law. An arbitral tribunal had found in favour of the defendants that the claimant had breached its obligation to deliver goods, under the terms of a contract, which was governed by the Laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the seat of the arbitration in London. The claimant challenged the award on the grounds of jurisdiction and serious irregularity. The defendants applied for certain matters to be determined as preliminary issues. The Commercial Court held that it was just and convenient, on case management grounds, to order a trial of the suggested preliminary issues, save for one issue, which had to go to trial. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant former Greek judge appealed against orders for her extradition to Greece. The Divisional Court, in dismissing two outstanding grounds of appeal, held that, on the basis of reliable assurances from the judicial authority, there were not substantial grounds for concluding that there was a real risk that the appellant's rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be infringed. Further, the present case was not one of the rare ones where art 8 of the Convention would be a bar to extradition, even though the appellant had a short sentence left to serve and had been subject to periods of curfew. 

Company – Derivative action. The claimant brought a derivative action on behalf of the third defendant company. The Chancery Division considered an application by the claimants under s 261(1) of the Companies Act 2006 to continue the derivative action. It held that, on the evidence, that all the factors in the case pointed in favour of granting the permission sought. 

Company – Shareholder – Minority shareholder. The claimant company brought a claim for specific performance against the defendants, alleging that the company had failed to issue it shares, in breach of a loan agreement. The main dispute concerned whether the claimant was a minority shareholder or a shareholder able to control the affairs and business of the company. The claimant sought interim relief, among other things, to allow for the inspection of certain company documents and to prevent the removal from the company of a director associated with the claimant. The Chancery Division granted some interim relief to impose a measure of control on the decision making of the company in the period before trial. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 5(2)(b) and 6 of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society). The request had been made in proceedings between Copydan Båndkopi and Nokia Danmark A/S concerning the payment of the levy intended to finance the fair compensation payable under the exception to the reproduction right provided for in art 5(2)(b) of that directive. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the submission that Rodriguez (Flexibility Policy) ([2013] UKUT 42 (IAC)) applied at the date of the decision was totally without merit. Further, the claimant had not submitted a specified document, but a document which had not included the mandatory information and the Secretary of State had been under no obligation to make an enquiry of the claimant as to why he had not done so. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant outline planning permission to the interested party for a residual waste facility and associated development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on its true construction, the existing use of the existing developed land had been safeguarded. Further, the officer's report had sufficiently raised and addressed the harm the proposed development would cause, and the assessment that there would be no significant effects on the Green Belt had not been unreasoned, and was not inexplicable and patently wrong. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The local authority served on the respondent, GPS, an enforcement notice requiring it to cease the storage of vehicles at one of its car parks, as its use contravened a policy contained in the local development plan. The inspector, appointed by the appellant Secretary of State, dismissed GPS' appeal against the enforcement notice. The Administrative Court allowed GPS's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held, inter alia, that the inspector had applied the policy correctly. Insofar as he had erred in one respect, the error was immaterial, because he had identified the right questions and reached conclusions that had been open to him on the evidence. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimant company brought a claim for misrepresentation and conspiracy against the defendants. A judge ordered the claimant to provide security for costs in the form of written confirmation from its insurer that the level of cover in respect of adverse costs had been extended to specified amounts. The defendants, relying on CPR 25.13(2)(c), further applied for an order for security of their costs in the form of an irrevocable bond or a deed of indemnity from the claimant's insurer. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was no reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so. Accordingly, the jurisdictional threshold of CPR 25.13(2)(c) had not been crossed and there was no discretion to grant the order sought.