Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. In the claimant's appeal, the parties agreed that the only remaining issue was costs. The claimant accepted, for the purposes of the appeal, that the court could not make an order for costs on the appeal unless it decided that the defendant's behaviour had been unreasonable or it re-allocated the claim from the small claims track to the multi-track. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there was nothing unreasonable about the defendant's behaviour and that it was not appropriate to re-allocate the claim to the multi-track or make a costs order against the defendant. 

Judgment – Default judgment. The claimant successfully obtained default judgment in its breach of contract claim against the defendant. Judgment was subsequently set aside, as the defendant's defence, that a single prokurist could not bind it, had a real prospect of success. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the judge had been correct as to the characterisation of the issue between the parties and that issue was governed by Swiss law, the place of the defendant's incorporation. On that basis, a single prokurist could not bind the defendant, giving it a defence with a real prospect of success. 

Pensions – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division made a number of declarations regarding a proposed amendment to the rules of an occupational pension scheme. It held that, among other things: (i) the proposal would be allowed; (ii) the pension scheme had not become frozen for the purposes of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Deficiency on Winding Up etc) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/3188 and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/678; and (iii) a cassation, under r 4 of the pension scheme, would not qualify as an employment cessation event, so as to trigger s 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. 

Practice – Striking out. The appellants appealed against the striking out of their proceedings for infringement of their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by virtue of the employment tribunal's recusal. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the immunity for a 'judicial act', under s 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, was not limited to acts or decisions which could be the subject of appeal or judicial review. On that basis, the judge had been correct to strike out the appellants' claims, notwithstanding the error in holding that s 2(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 had applied. 

Minor – Abduction. The mother of a young child (S) applied for his summary return from the United Kingdom to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to the mother, the father had wrongfully removed S from the UAE. The father maintained that there had been a planned, consensual relocation. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, S had left the UAE as the result, not of a consensual relocation plan, but because the father had decided to take S away from the mother and also from the country of his habitual residence. It was overwhelmingly in S's welfare interests to return with his mother to the UAE as swiftly as could be arranged. 

Judgment – Default judgment. The claimant, a Russian citizen, brought a claim against the defendant Kazakh company for breach of share purchase agreements. Judgment in default of acknowledgement of service and a judgment on an assessment of damages were entered. The defendant applied to set aside the judgments. The Commercial Court, dismissing the application, held that the establishment by the defendant of a realistic defence was not sufficient to justify setting aside the judgments notwithstanding that the sums involved were large. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeals against conviction for offences involving a petrol bomb. The court rejected the defendant's principal contention that, having taken a verdict on count 2 (possession of an offensive weapon), the Crown had been barred from further pursuing him on count 1 (possession with intent to cause damage). 

Damages – Measure of damages. The issue for determination was the extent to which the credit hire charge incurred by the claimant was recoverable from the defendant insurer. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge faced with a range of hire rates should identify the rate or rates for hire, in the claimant's geographical area, of the type of car actually hired on credit hire terms. The analysis had to strip out the irrecoverable costs. If a single rate, then that rate was likely to be a reasonable approximation for the basic hire rate. If a range of rates, then a reasonable estimate might be obtained by identifying the lowest reasonable rate quoted by a mainstream supplier or a local reputable supplier. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority applied to quash the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant developer's appeal and granting outline planning permission for up to 146 dwellings. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had erred in finding that the local plan policy had come within para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) and it had been an error of law to seek to divide the policy so as to apply it only in part. The inspector would not have taken the approach he had, if he had concluded that the policy was to be given full effect. 

Social security – Benefit. The appellant had been granted refugee status and sought recovery of a back-payment of income support to the time of her asylum application. She was refused back-payment and her appeals through the tribunal system were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, interpreting s 12 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 in the light of art 23 of the Geneva Convention, there was no entitlement to such back-payments and there was no express or implied obligation to make a lump sum payment representing the difference between the earlier asylum support payments or benefits in kind and mainstream benefits pursuant to art 28 of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83.