Latest Cases

Contract – Contract for services. In the course of a dispute regarding the alleged overcharging of the claimants by the defendants for services required in shipping, storage and loading in the exploitation of hydrocarbon reserves, the Commercial Court made a number of rulings on preliminary issues. In particular, it held that the claimants had a potential claim in damages against the first defendant company. 

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. 

Stamp duty land tax – Relief. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer company's appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that 75A of the Finance Act 2003 applied to the transaction at issue, with the result that the taxpayer was chargeable to stamp duty land tax in respect of a notional land transaction. 

Air traffic – Civil Aviation Authority. The Administrative Court held that it was the Secretary of State for Transport (SST) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), rather than the Secretary of State for Defence and the Ministry of Defence (MOD), which had statutory responsibility for safety in relation to the use of a RAF airport by civil aircraft. Those responsibilities could not be delegated to the MOD or Military Aviation Authority (MAA). However, the SST and CAA could rely upon information and assessments provided by the MAA and MOD to fulfil their statutory functions. A declaration that the CAA had power to impose conditions on the notification of government aerodromes in relation to matters concerning the safety of the use by civil aircraft of such aerodromes would not be made because it was uncontentious. 

Highway – Classification. The claimant issued proceedings, questioning the validity of an order, substituting a bridleway for a byway open to all traffic (BOAT) with respect to a lane. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State could properly, as a matter of judgment, have found the lane to be a BOAT or a bridleway and his decision had not been wrong. Accordingly, it was impossible to submit that the evidence had been such that the only reasonable conclusion had been that the lane had been open to vehicular traffic. 

Contract – Public contract. The claimant had unsuccessfully bid for a contract in relation to the decommissioning of nuclear installations that had been put out to tender by the defendant. The defendant announced the winning bidder and the standstill period commenced, during which time the claimant expressed its concerns about the adequacy of the procurement process. After the contract had been entered into, the claimant issued proceedings. On a trial of preliminary issues, the Technology and Construction Court held that the court had no discretion not to make an award of damages if the claim were proved. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of one year imprisonment for fraud. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, for the appellant to go to Poland to be released in a matter of a very few weeks would be wholly disproportionate, bearing in mind the 14 years that had elapsed since the offence and, more particularly, that he had not gone without punishment because he had served a substantial term of imprisonment in the United Kingdom. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following their separation, the mother and father of three children were engaged in long-running private law proceedings in respect of the care of their children, in particular, the amount of time that they should spend with their father. The judge made an order, pursuant to s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, against the father, prohibiting further applications for a period of three years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been a need for a significant period, not a very long period, but a significant period, of absence of litigation, or at least control of litigation through the filter of s 91(14) of the Act, and three years was not a period that could be properly challenged in the context of the present case. 

Building contract – Contract administrator. The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the interpretation of the JCT standard building contract, without quantities, revision 2 (2009). The Technology and Construction Court held that the proper construction of cl 1.9.3 of the contract was that, following the issue of the final certificate, the contract provided for just one set of proceedings, started within 28 days, in which that final certificate could be challenged. The only exception to that was if the original proceedings had been commenced by way of adjudication: then, the position was governed by cl 1.9.4 of the contract, although a protective arbitration notice or claim form would also be permissible, provided that, too, had been issued within the 28 days. 

Shipping – Cargo. The parties contracted for the shipping of Russian grain. However, during loading, the grain was found to be of unsuitable quality. The buyers appealed from an award of the GAFTA board of appeal. The Commercial Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, among other things, the board of appeal had been wrong in law to ignore the totality of the evidence bearing on the question of whether the cargo had been contractually compliant.