Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Annulment. The appellant debtor appealed against an order of a deputy district judge dismissing her application for the annulment of a bankruptcy order. In her grounds of appeal, the appellant had raised a limitation defence. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the belated revelation of the second respondent's only real answer to the appellant's limitation defence after the bankruptcy order had been made, without any explanation why it had not previously been put forward, materially altered the legal landscape and was an exceptional circumstance justifying review of the validity and enforceability of the petition debt. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection sought judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decisions that their continued detention remained necessary for the protection of the public and, accordingly, refusing their release on licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the Parole Board had not been required to consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 or art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the policy guidance available to the Parole Board was lawful and the first claimant's continued detention had not breached art 3, 5, 8 and 14 of the Convention. 

Contract – Construction. The claimants undertook some work in respect of a proposed site for a hotel in Germany, which the defendant sought to acquire and develop. After a period of negotiation, the parties agreed that the claimants would be paid €150,000, plus VAT. The claimants brought proceedings in respect of the agreement and the question was whether, on its true construction, it was an agreement to pay for services rendered in the past or only if further work was done. The judge awarded the claimants the agreed sum, holding that no further performance was required. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, it was not possible to reach a different conclusion from the judge on the essential findings of fact. 

Trust – Administration of trust. In the course of proceedings, the claimant companies sought two declarations. The first, which related to the status of trust monies, would be granted. The second, which concerned the status of an injunction granted by the New York courts, would not be allowed since, in the circumstances, it would be qualified to the point where it would serve no useful purpose. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning art 7(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts). The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Baczo and another and the Raiffeisen Bank Zrt concerning an application for a declaration of invalidity of a mortgage loan contract and of the arbitration clause contained in that contract. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the action by Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Environmental) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Societe Elmar Wolf and Environmental concerning the application by Environmental for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Annex I, No 14, to Council Directive (EEC) 85/337 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as amended by Directive (EC) 2009/31. The request had been made in proceedings between the municipality of Strasswalchen, Austria, and other applicants and the Austrian Federal Minister for Economy, Family and Youth, concerning a decision authorising Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG to carry out exploratory drilling on the territory of the municipality. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion against the Lord Ordinary's dismissal of a judicial review petition seeking reduction of a decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing the petitioner leave to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal, the court held that the petitioner had failed to identify either an important point of principle or practice that the proposed appeal would raise, or some other compelling reason justifying interference with the decision to refuse to grant permission to appeal. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court allowed the claimants' application to amend a claim form and particulars of claim, pursuant to CPR 17.1(3) and 19.4(1), but refused permission to serve it on proposed defendants outside the jurisdiction and refused a proprietary injunction which had been sought by the claimants. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant was a ten year old girl who had been taking part in a group swimming lesson when she got into difficulties and suffered serious brain injury as a result of loss of oxygen to the brain. She brought a claim in damages for negligence against the teacher in charge of her group the lifeguard and the local authority. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence, both the swim teacher and the lifeguard had been negligent and as a consequence the authority was liable for their negligence.