Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant property developer sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to join a limited liability partnership formed for the purpose of promoting land to housing development in the area. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's cabinet had not been provided with the necessary information so that it could take into account obviously relevant considerations. Further, the authority had failed to follow the procedure required by s 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, given its intention to dispose of open space. 

Contract – Charterparty. The charterers of four vessels claimed damages from the first to the fourth defendant registered owners of the vessels, alleging breach of charterparties by withdrawing the vessels from service. The charterers contended that the charter parties had been fixed by the fifth defendant, as agent, on behalf of the owners. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the main claim, held that there was no evidence that the fifth defendant had been authorised to conclude the charterparties on behalf of the owners. The charterers succeeded on the alternative claim against the fifth defendant, which was held liable in damages for breach of an implied warranty of authority. 

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. 

Child – Care. The local authority's case was that G has been subjected to FGM and that that constituted 'significant harm' within the meaning of s 31 of the Children Act 1989. The Family Court held that there was insufficient evidence of FGM but that FGM did amount to 'significant harm' for the purposes of s 31 of the Act. 

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. 

Civil procedure – Summary decree: Court of Session: Refusing an apppeal in an action for payment of solicitors' fees against a sheriff principal's refusal of an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor dismissing the defender's counterclaim on the pursuer's motion for summary decree, the court held that the sheriff was entitled, on the averments and the other material relied on, to conclude that the counterclaim had no real prospect of success, and the sheriff principal did not err in his approach to the appeal before him. 

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.