Latest Cases

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The parties contracted regarding the provision of a loan. A dispute arose and they sought to arbitrate. Concerns were raised as to the impartiality of the arbitrator, Z, and the claimants made an application to have Z removed as arbitrator. In allowing the application, the Commercial Court held that the connections and actions of Z raised justifiable doubts as to his ability to act impartially. Further, the claimants had not lost their entitlement to raise doubts about Z. 

Practice – Interim remedy. The proceedings concerned property previously owned by an individual, W, the subject of the largest ever personal bankruptcy in British legal history. While insolvent, W had sold the property to his father, who had later made it the subject of a trust. The property was seized by court enforcement officers, following an arbitration award in the defendant's favour. The claimants claimed ownership of, and sought injunctions in relation to, the property seized. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the first claimant's application, held that he had not established that there was a serious issue to be tried. The alleged transaction by W to sell the chattels to his father had not been not an assignment and did not fall within the meaning of the words of s 4 of the Bills of Sale Act 1878. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his planning appeal for residential development, associated access and landscaping. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had misinterpreted and misapplied para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the policies in the local plan, he had erred in assuming that the physical limits boundary had been defined in the local plan and he had failed to assess the significance of a heritage asset. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(the FTT) in which the FTT had allowed the taxpayer's appeal against the Revenue's refusal to repay VAT that the taxpayer had considered had been overpaid on booking fees it had charged to its customers. The tribunal decided that there had been no error of principle or perversity in the approach adopted by the FTT in respect of the supply issue and made a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the exemption issue. 

Criminal evidence – Hearsay. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against his conviction for murder and perverting the course of justice, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that it was in the interests of the defendant and co-defendant that an alleged hearsay statement should be admitted in evidence, pursuant to s 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Now Wireless Ltd (Now), established in the United Kingdom, against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), concerning revocation proceedings between Now and Starbucks (HK) Ltd regarding the registration by the latter company of a figurative mark depicting the word 'now'. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee brought proceedings against the employer, alleging, among other things, constructive dismissal and racial and age-related harassment. She raised an issue about compliance with statutory grievance procedure for the first time at the start of the substantive hearing. The employment tribunal allowed the point to be taken. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the point had been arguable. 

Injunction – Ex parte injunction. The claimant sought the continuation of an injunction to restrain persons unknown from harassing her and her son. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the need for the injunction had not expired and it would be continued until trial or further order. However, the claimant was required to give a further undertaking to apply for directions as to the further conduct of the action if she had been able to trace the defendants within three months, to ensure the interim order had not become permanent because the defendants could not be traced. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to face trial for a joint enterprise offence of organising the transportation of prostitutes to the United Kingdom and then gaining profits from the acts of prostitution of those transported. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, gave guidance on the new 'forum bar' provision in s 19B of the Extradition Act 2003. It held that there was no forum bar to the appellant's extradition. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother and the father met through a website CoParentMatch.com, the mother was gay. The parties eventually conceived a child. Contact became a problem and the matter came before the court. The father sought a Parental Responsibility Order. The Family Division made the PRO on the basis that there were key features which pointed compellingly to the making of the order.