Latest Cases

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned the Britax pension fund. Following the decision in Barber-v-Guardian Royal Exchange Group (C-262/88)[1991] 1 QB 344, it had become necessary for the employer to equalise the normal pensionable age (NPA) of members of fund. The claimants brought a claim contending that a trust deed and rules executed in 2000 had been ineffective to change the NPA as from 1991 as required. They contended that the defendant, which had provided actuarial and investment consultancy services to the second claimant employer, had been negligent in the advice it had provided. A master granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the claim was time-barred. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the master had not applied the wrong test in determining the issue of constructive knowledge. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant's claim for asylum from Eritrea had been refused and her appeals to the First-tier and Upper Tribunals (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had been dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing her appeal, held that in the circumstances, there had been no error of law on the part of the First-tier Tribunal and no error of law by the Upper Tribunal in its analysis of the First-tier's reasoning. 

Administration of estates – Distribution. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (the trust) against certain orders for costs made during the course of proceedings in respect of the administration of the estate of Jimmy Savile. Its appeal against various other orders was dismissed. 

Counsel – Disciplinary jurisdiction. The present case concerned a group of applications for permission to appeal raising related issues. The one overarching question was whether, arguably, disciplinary proceedings against a number of barristers were invalid on the ground that some of the individuals who heard those proceedings or appeals therefrom were disqualified from sitting. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in refusing permission to appeal, held that the three barristers had no prospect of successfully appealing on the ground that the President or the Lord Chief Justice could only make appointments from the members of the Council of the Inns of Court pool. 

Company – Winding-up. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills presented a petition for the winding up of a company in the public interest. The main issue was whether the court should dispense with advertisement of the petition, accelerate the hearing of the petition and grant the winding up order on the day of the hearing. The Chancery Division, held that, in circumstances where the petition was in the public interest, it was entirely appropriate for the court to dispense with advertisement of the petition. The shareholders of the company would not be prejudiced by accelerating the hearing of the petition and, on the facts, the case was one where the company should be wound up in the public interest. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. H was made bankrupt. His assets on the date of the bankruptcy included four pension policies. H did not wish to crystallise the policies and, without crystallisation, the precise value of the policies could not be determined. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy applied to the court, effectively seeking that H be ordered to crystallise his policies and to exercise his elections in a manner desired by the trustee. The Chancery Division held that there was no power to require H to elect in any particular way. The application would be dismissed. 

Abortion – Participation in treatment. The petitioners were both experienced midwives employed by the employer health board. Both were practising Roman Catholics who objected to 'delegating, supervising and/or supporting staff to participate in and provide care to patients throughout the termination process'. The question was the meaning of the words 'to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection' as set out in s 4 of the Abortion Act 1967. The Supreme Court held that it was unlikely that, in enacting the conscience clause, Parliament had in mind the host of ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with those acts. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendants' decisions, holding him in custody for seven years after the expiry of the minimum term of his sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendants' failings had resulted in a 12 month period of avoidable delay, warranting something more than declaratory relief. Accordingly, the sum of £2,500 would be awarded for a breach of the claimant's rights under art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant bank obtained a worldwide freezing order against the defendant, regarding proceedings in Ukraine. The Ukrainian court found for the defendant and dismissed the claimant's appeals. The claimant applied to continue the freezing order. The Commercial Court held that the claimant could not show that it had a good arguable case against the defendant, and discharged the freezing order. 

Road traffic – Accident. A collision occurred between the claimant and the defendant in which the claimant suffered serious injury. The claimant claimed against the defendant in negligence. The defendant disputed liability on that basis of the defence of automatism. The Queen's Bench Division agreed with the claimant's analysis of the case and found that he was entitled to judgment with damages to be assessed.