Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant applied to serve witness statements and to vacate a trial date upon the basis that time was needed to draft and serve the statements. The Queen's Bench Division, applying recent case law on CPR 39, held that the trial would not be vacated. However, the claimant would be allowed to serve witness statements, subject to an unless order. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Compagnie des montre Longines, Francillon SA (CML), against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between CML and Xiuxiu Cheng, concerning the application by the latter company for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign represented in black and white depicting extended wings. 

Order – Variation. The claimant had applied, under the Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975, for reasonable financial provision out of his deceased father's estate. That application had been compromised and had resulted in a consent order, providing for payments to be made to cover the claimant's university education up to a specified date. The claimant applied to vary the order to extend the funding to cover a post graduate course outside of the specified date. The Chancery Division held that it had been inaccurately anticipated at the time of the order that the claimant would have completed his post-graduate education by a certain date. Taking all factors into account, it was an appropriate case for a variation of the order under s 6 of the Act. 

Employment – Practice and procedure. The employee and his colleague (the co-claimant) alleged unfair dismissal against their employer. The claims were dismissed. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application for an extension of the time to present his notice of appeal, in circumstances where he had not included the ET1 and ET3 forms of the co-claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, ruled that the time limited by r 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, started to run when an employment tribunal sent out a judgment and written reasons even though it had been wrongly addressed. Further, where two cases involving two different claimants were heard together, the two cases constituted the 'proceedings' for the purposes of r 3(1) of the Rules, and even if only one claimant proposed to appeal, r 3(1)(b) required the prospective appellant to either serve the ET1 form and ET3 forms in the co-claimant's case or give an explanation for not doing so. An appeal would not be properly instituted where neither step had been taken. 

Liquidator – Company. In the course of the liquidation of a company, the liquidator applied for delivery of certain documents relating to the company's management: in particular, concerning the work and payment of receivers. The Companies Court made rulings as to the documents to be made available to him. 

Valuation – Hereditament. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) determined that the hereditament in issue, namely, a floor in an office building, would be entered in the local non-domestic rating list at a rateable value of £1. The Court of Appeal allowed the valuation officer's appeal. The valuation officer had to begin by asking whether the hereditament in its actual state was in a condition such as to make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant who would be likely to take it. The assumption required by para 2(1)(b) of Sch 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 required it to be assumed that the hereditament was in a state of reasonable repair, unless the repairs were uneconomic. 'Repairs' could only mean repairs as traditionally understood in the law of landlord and tenant. On the material date, the hereditament had been 'an office suite in disrepair', the works in question could fairly be described as repairs and it was not uneconomic to reinstate the building. 

Trust and trustee – Corporate trustee. The dispute arose out of contractual arrangements made in connection with a project for the construction of a national stadium and sporting complex in Grenada and, in particular, a facility agreement made with between the appellant, NS, and CLICO Investment Bank Ltd (CIB). The proceedings concerned the ownership of funds payable under that agreement which had been frozen pursuant to an ex parte injunction. The Privy Council set aside an order dismissing NS's notice of appeal against a declaration that the frozen fund was held on trust for NH. 

Town and country planning – Conservation area. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's designation of Oxford Stadium as a conservation area, pursuant to s 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the stadium had constituted an 'area', the designation had not been irrational and had considered material considerations. Accordingly, the desire to prevent the demolition of the area, which the authority had concluded fit the statutory criteria, with a character worth preserving or enhancing, was a proper purpose of designation. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The pursuer had been seriously injured by a car when crossing the road. Her contributory negligence had been assessed at 90%. On appeal, her contributory negligence had been reduced to 70%. The Supreme Court held that the parties had been equally responsible for the damage suffered by the pursuer. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and 50% of the agreed damages would be awarded to the pursuer.