Latest Cases

Telecommunications – Regulatory bodies. The claimants sought judicial review of actions taken by the defendant for breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the Code). The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant's actions had been unlawful and unfair. They had not complied with art 3 of Directive (EC) 2000/31, in particular, because the measures had been disproportionate in that they had gone beyond the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the objective of protecting customers. The claim would be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division for issues of causation and quantification of damages to be determined. 

Easement – Right of way. The proceedings concerned a neighbour dispute between the claimants and defendants, in which the judge made declarations as to the boundary of the land owned by the claimants and the land owned by the second defendant, and as to the claimants' entitlement to a vehicular right of way over a way, in so far as it was in the ownership of the second defendant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendants' appeal on the boundary issue, but dismissed it on the right of way issue. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant company to restrain it from acting contrary to the claimant's interests in alleged breach of trust and in alleged conflict of interest. The defendant applied for a stay. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, it would be appropriate for the stay to be granted. 

Libel and slander – Practice. In a libel action, the defendant sought to amend his defence at a late stage. The claimant opposed the application. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application to amend on the basis that there had been unjustifiable delay and the case was a new case. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In divorce proceedings, the wife made an application for financial provision. One issue was whether the court could conclude that the husband's father, who was very wealthy, would come to the aid of his son and, if so, whether the present case was a 'backfill case' or one where, exceptionally, the court could order 'new money' to be provided from the husband's father. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, the husband's father would help out, but only to the minimum necessary to relieve his son from visible financial hardship. To that limited extent, the husband's father's wealth and generosity could be said to amount to a resource which the court needed to consider. The court proceeded to make various orders. 

Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state. The present proceedings concerned the entitlement to £1m deposited with the defendant bank by the first High Commissioner to Pakistan in 1948 and now worth approximately £35m. The Chancery Division held that the grandsons and heirs of the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad, and India should be joined as interested parties. It further exercised its powers, under CPR 38.4, to set aside Pakistan's notice of discontinuance of proceedings seeking an order for delivery up of the funds and/or damages for their conversion by the bank. In serving the notice of discontinuance, Pakistan had been abusing the process of the court, namely, to preserve its sovereign immunity, which had been waived by starting its action. 

European Union – Regulation. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (Abdulrahim), residing in London for annulment of certain decisions taken by the European Commission which had included and maintained Abdulrahim on a list of persons and entities whose funds and other economic resources were to be frozen due to their association with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban. The General Court decided that none of the allegations made against the applicant was such as to justify the adoption, at EU level, of restrictive measures against him. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had owned a painting which he had sold at auction through the defendant auction house for £42,000. The defendant had assessed the painting as being a copy of a well-known work by Caravaggio. After the sale, the buyer, who was an art scholar of great renown, declared the painting to be by Caravaggio himself. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant alleging negligence in its investigation of the painting. The Chancery Division dismissed his claim. It considered the scope of the duty of care owed by a leading auction house, as opposed to a provincial one, and concluded that the defendant had not been negligent in its assessment of the painting. 

Immigration – Citizenship. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings challenging the Home Secretary's refusal of the petitioner's application for registration as a British Citizen pursuant to s 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981, the court considered that counsel for the respondent's construction was to be preferred as regards the correct legal meaning to be applied to s 4C, which he submitted by its explicit terms extended only to those persons who would by operation of law have become British subjects or citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without the need for registration. 

Civil procedure – Personal injuries action – Statement of valuation. Court of Session: In a personal injuries action which called for proof without a defenders' statement of valuation having been lodged, the court refused the defenders' motion to vary the timetable to allow late receipt of their statement of valuation and held that the sanction of granting the pursuer's motion for decree restricted to the sum concluded for was available to the court at proof diet and was the only appropriate sanction.