Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Business premises. The judge, in dismissing the tenant's application for a new tenancy of a business premises, held that the relevant date for ascertainment of the landlord's intention to demolish and reconstruct the property on the termination of the tenant's tenancy, for the purposes of s 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, was the date of the hearing before him, and that intention had been established as at that date. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the tenant's appeal, held that s 30(1)(f) of the Act required the landlord to prove his intention at the date of the hearing and there was no practical reason why he should also be required to prove that he had held that intention at the date of service of his notice to terminate the tenancy. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the making available of a stadium to a football club constituted a supply of services rather than a letting of immovable property within the meaning of art 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive where, amongst other things, the owner permanently controlled the access to the sporting facilities and 80% of the charge payable represented services of management, maintenance and cleaning. 

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. 

Child – Care. Following a decision by the local authority for care proceedings in respect of a family resident in England, the father removed the children to the Republic of Ireland. Following a hearing in order to determine habitual residence for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and the Matters of Parental Responsibility) the Family Division held that the father's actions in removing the children to Ireland had not changed their habitual residence from England to Ireland. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Company – Winding up. The appeal concerned the question whether, when there was both an appeal against a VAT assessment pending in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the tribunal) and a winding-up petition pending in the Companies Court, the tribunal or the Companies Court was the appropriate forum to determine whether the petition debt was disputed in good faith on substantial grounds. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, when the tribunal had reached a conclusion on such an issue, that decision was normally likely to be a compelling factor in the Companies Court's exercise of discretion. That discretion was not, however, completely abrogated by the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It need not defer to the tribunal in every case, though it might often choose to do so.