Latest Cases

Immigration – Refugee. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the three appeals where an issue arose as to whether, notwithstanding the defendants' guilty pleas, their convictions were unsafe by reason of the failure of their legal representatives to advise them adequately or at all of the availability of a defence under s 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and whether, had they been so advised, there was a reasonable prospect that they would have been able to successfully advance a defence under that section at trial. On the facts, two of the appeals were allowed, and the third was dismissed. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant managing director of a company in administration brought an action against the defendants companies house and the registrar of companies in respect of incorrect information published on the company register. It was the claimant's case that the publication of the information was a breach of duty of care which had caused the company to go into administration. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the claimant's case applying the assumption of responsibility and the three stage Caparo test. 

Solicitor – Retainer. At a time when the claimant had had capacity, she had entered into a conditional fee agreement with a firm of solicitors in respect of medical negligence proceedings that she had issued. She subsequently lost capacity. She succeeded in her claim and her solicitors submitted their bill of costs in order to seek recovery of those from the defendant. The defendant disputed the costs that related to the period when the claimant had been acting through the deputy appointed on her behalf. The regional costs judge, who had accepted the defendant's submissions, was overturned by the High Court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal and held that the parties had to have contemplated that the claimant might lose capacity and that instructions could be given on her behalf. In all the circumstances, it could not have been the intention of the parties that the claimant had to give instructions personally and her supervening incapacity had not rendered the contract incapable of performance. 

European Union – Taxation. The Chancery Division considered consequential matters and made orders further to an earlier judgment in a test case by Prudential Assurance Company Ltd concerning the legality of the United Kingdom's rules on the taxation of dividends received by UK-resident companies on shareholdings which were held by them as investments and allocated to their pension business and life assurance business. 

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned the construction of an agreement for the provision by the defendant of catering services at the claimant's golf club premises, which the claimant sought to terminate. The defendant contended that the agreement provided for an initial term of three years, terminable thereafter by either party on four months' notice and the claimant contended that it was for a fixed term of three years, but terminable at any time by four months' notice within the initial three years. The judge decided the point against the defendant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that it was of significance that, in the agreement, the parties had identified the initial term of three years as having been required in order for the agreement to have been reasonable. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimants, B and L, had formerly made compromise agreements concluding claims against the defendant company, NGN, which had published the News of the World. They brought new actions against NGN. The Chancery Division held that the agreements, properly interpreted, covered the elements of the new claims relating to phone hacking. B's claim would be struck out and L's claim would be struck out insofar as it related to phone hacking. 

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. In claims by many hundreds of Iraqi civilians against the defendant Ministry of Defence for damages for their allegedly unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces, the preliminary issue was whether the claims were barred by an applicable statute of limitations. The Queen's Bench Division held that, by reason of Coalition Provisional Authority Order No 17 (CPA Order 17), the time limit was suspended indefinitely. Further, s 2(3) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 did not apply to disregard the suspension of the limitation period resulting from the effect of CPA Order 17. 

Criminal law – Costs. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that s 16A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the subsequent statutory scheme was incompatible with arts 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that s 16A of the Act was not incompatible with the Convention on account of its failure to enable acquitted defendants in the Crown Court to recover their privately incurred legal costs in cases committed or sent between 1 October 2012 and 27 January 2014, nor was its present iteration. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the employers. A journalist from the first respondent newspaper sought access to the employee's witness statement. The employment tribunal granted the request in respect of the whole of the statement, which it ruled had been submitted in evidence and was available for inspection. The respondent appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had not applied the correct test to determine whether or not parts of the employee's witness statement had been admitted in evidence for the purposes of r 44 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, so that they were open for inspection to the public. The matter was remitted for redetermination. 

Injunction – Ex parte injunction. The wife of a convicted sex offender was photographed aggressively whilst leaving her home with her son. She sought an ex parte injunction against persons unknown under the Protection form Harassment Act 1997. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the injunction under those terms but did not restrain harassment by publication.