Latest Cases

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant, a disabled man, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's consultation on its proposal to cut its adult social care budget. He contended that the authority had failed to provide adequate information on whether there were alternatives to the authority's proposal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in the present case, fairness had not required consultation upon arguable yet discarded alternative options. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The appellant shipowners chartered a vessel under a voyage charterparty on an amended BPVoy4 form. The owners brought a claim for demurrage. The tribunal held that the claim failed, as owners had failed to provide relevant documents, as required by the BPVoy4 form. The owners appealed. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the tribunal had not erred in holding that the claim for demurrage was time barred. 

Police – Powers. The claimant teenager had been arrested and taken to a police station. An assessment was made that she might use her clothes as a ligature to attempt suicide, so they were removed by three female police officers. Her claim for damages was dismissed by the county court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that while she had been strip searched, within the meaning of s 54(6A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and para 4.1 of Code C and para 9 of Annex A of Code C of the PACE Codes of Practice, there had been no breach of para 11 of Annex A. While the recorder had not directly applied para 11, he had made a finding that established that there had been compliance with the spirit of that requirement. 

Contract – Construction. The parties had referred a contractual dispute to adjudication which had led to an award being made against the defendant. The claimant requested rectification of the award on the basis of a clerical mistake. The defendant did not pay the full amount of the revised award, but paid the lesser sum awarded under the first adjudicator's decision. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant's application for summary judgment as the claimant had correctly initiated an operative request for amendment of the award, which had been actioned within the specified time, in accordance with the relevant contractual provision. 

Child – Care. There were before the court two applications from the local authority for a care order in relation to a little boy, A, who was born on 11 January 2014, and for a placement order. The father put himself forward as a sole carer of A. The Family Court held that the local authority's case was a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations and flowing from that the local authority was to willing to believe the worst of the father. Both applications were dismissed. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Production of documents. In the course of proceedings between the claimant and defendant (RBS), RBS sought an order that it was not required to permit inspection of an attachment to the deferred prosecution agreement between it and the United States Department of Justice. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, RBS would be ordered to produce the document for inspection in the present action. The order would take effect four weeks from the date on which it was made and a special further order would be made, providing that, until further order, neither party might refer to the document in open court without permission obtained in advance. 

Criminal Law – Trial. The defendant contended that his plea of guilty had been obtained through improper pressure following a proposal by the prosecution to drop proceedings against two of his co-defendants, including his partner who was the mother of his two young children. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the plea had not been improperly induced and an application to vacate the plea had been rightly refused. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The claimant firm of chartered accountants sought judicial review of the defendant Financial Ombudsman Service's decision that it had jurisdiction to consider a complaint made by the interested party. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant had not erred in finding that it had had jurisdiction. Although the alleged purpose of the advice had been tax avoidance, it could also have involved investment advice. Further, the defendant had not erred in finding that the advice had concerned a 'collective investment scheme', on the basis of the 'purpose or effect' of the scheme and the day-to-day control. 

Shipping – Charterparty. A charterparty contained an 'in-transit loss' clause (ITL clause) and a further clause, providing that the respondent owners were entitled to the protection of the relevant articles of the Hague-Visby Rules in respect of 'any claim' made under the charterparty. En route, pirates took control of the vessel and some cargo was lost. The appellant charterer contended that the owner was liable under the ITL clause. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the words 'in-transit loss' connoted loss 'incidental to the carriage of the cargo'. Further, even if the ITL clause had had the meaning for which the charterer contended, the Rules would apply to exempt the owner from liability. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant, an English company entered into a contract with the first defendant Government of Egypt for the design and construction of a new airport in Egypt. A dispute arose and the claimant brought arbitration proceedings in Egypt. An award and later, an enforcement order, were granted in favour of claimant. The first defendant applied, pursuant to s 101(2) Arbitration Act 1996, to set aside the enforcement order. The Commercial Court ordered that the enforcement order had to be set aside where the award had been set aside by a Court of Appeal decision in Cairo and where the award granted remedies on a basis which had never been pleaded nor argued.