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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Damages – Personal injury. The proceedings concerned a claim for damages for serious brain injuries which the claimant had suffered during her delivery. The defendant NHS Trust had accepted liability for the injuries and the parties had agreed some heads of damages. The Queen's Bench Division ruled on the remaining disputed heads of damage, including general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, past gratuitous care and case management, and past professional case management. 

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. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The claimants sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant's predecessor, the Office of Fair Trading (the OFT), refusing a payment to them similar to that made to a third party (TMR), pursuant to the OFT's assurance to TMR. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the OFT had given the assurance that TMR would benefit from a successful appeal by another party against its finding of infringement, under Ch 1 of the Competition Act 1998. It had been unfair for the OFT to give TMR that unknown advantage, but the mistake should not be replicated in the claimant's favour, as public funds were concerned.