Latest Cases

Loan – loan agreement. The claimants had made out a compelling case for the grant of specific performance of a loan agreement by the execution of a registrable second charge over a property in their claim against the defendants. The Chancery Division further granted the claimants an injunction, and ordered the provision of information about development works and the taking of accounts of the net profit.

Financial services – Securitisation. The steps taken by the first defendant, Greencoat Investments (GIL), together with the other defendants, to take control of the securitisation structure issued by the claimant Business Mortgage Finance 6 (BMF6) were invalid and of no effect. The Chancery Division, also granted an injunction as there remained a strong probability that, unless restrained by an order of the court, GIL would continue to interfere with the securitisation structure irrespective of whether it had the requisite standing to do so

Family – Financial remedies. The terms of r 9.17 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, which stated that a judge hearing an in-court family dispute resolution appointment (the FDR) 'must have no further involvement' was a strict rule to be obeyed by judges and could not be waived even in circumstances where both or all parties had agreed to the waiver. The Family Division so held in proceedings concerning applications, among other things, to vary a financial remedies order, during the course of which it had been discovered various enforcement and variation applications had been made that the judge hearing those applications had been the judge who had conducted the FDR.

Criminal law – Victim of trafficking. The defendant was a victim of trafficking, and there was a clear nexus of compulsion between his production of a controlled drug of class B, namely cannabis, and the trafficking. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendant's conviction had been unsafe and quashed it.

Employment – Equal Pay. If an employer was going to seek to justify a pay disparity based on a factor such as the comparator's promotion or superior merit or market forces, it had to be able to explain with particularity what those factors meant and how they were assessed, and how they had applied in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, in allowing the claimant's cross-appeal against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, held that the employer had been unable to do that because of its chaotic and non-transparent employment system.

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) had held that the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833, made no provision for pro-rating of annual leave in circumstances where the respondent teacher did not have normal working hours within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They simply required the straightforward exercise of identifying a week's pay in accordance with the provisions of ss 221-224 of that Act and multiplying that figure by 5.6. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, having considered the relevant EU and domestic law, agreed with the EAT and dismissed the appeal by the Harpur Trust against the EAT's decision.

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The decision by the Financial Conduct Authority to cancel the limited permission to carry on consumer credit activities including credit broking given to North London Van Centre Ltd (NLVC) under Pt 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) had not been outside the bounds of reasonable decisions open to it. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the reference made to it by NLVC concerning the FCA's Decision Notice.

Negligence – Contributory negligence. It was no answer to the defendant's breach of duty, resulting in a road traffic collision, to say that the claimant, by reason of his excessive speed, had fallen outside its scope. However, the Queen's Bench Division, found that the proper apportionment was 70/30 in favour of the defendant, as the claimant had been racing in a way that had been dangerous and irresponsible.

Extradition – Private and family life. Balancing the factors in favour and against extradition, and taking the best interests of the appellant's son as a paramount consideration, her extradition was compatible with the art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights rights engaged. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against judge's decision to order her extradition to Lithuania for offences related to heroin.

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary committee. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal (the MPT) had been entitled to rule that, in proceedings before it, adverse inferences from silence or a failure of a charged registered practitioner to give evidence were permissible. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the applicant registered medical practitioner's judicial review action challenging that decision, held that it was open to the MPT to draw adverse inferences from the failure of a charged registered practitioner to give evidence, including in an appropriate case, the inference that he had no innocent explanation for the prima face case against him, subject to such an inference not being procedurally unfair.