Latest Cases

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant sought to bring proceedings against the first defendant, which was based in Monaco, and the second and third defendants, which were based in England. The Chancery Division, in setting aside permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction, held that the claimant had failed to show that the English jurisdiction was clearly the more appropriate forum for the claim. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant Yemeni national issued judicial review proceedings, seeking the quashing of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing her application for a British passport and a declaration that she was entitled to rely on DNA testing. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that the claimant had failed to establish her identity and, accordingly, the stage of establishing her relationship had not been reached, such that the issue of DNA testing had not arisen on the evidence available to the Secretary of State. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by Vladimir Peftiev for annulment of certain decisions and regulations adopted and maintained by the European Council concerning restrictive measures adopted against Belarus. The General Court annulled certain of those decisions and regulations but dismissed the rest of the action as being inadmissible. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action by Formula One Licensing BV (Formula One) for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Racing-Live and Formula One regarding the application for registration of a figurative sign depicting: 'F1-LIVE' as a Community trade mark. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The claimant was the successor company to which Northern Rock Building Society transferred its business in 1997. It brought a claim against the defendant borrowers seeking declarations, among other things that the rights and remedies available under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Act, or protections equivalent to such rights and remedies, had not been imported into unregulated agreements, notwithstanding that they fell outside the statutory scheme and that it had not breached of its obligations under the agreements. The Chancery Division ruled that the rights and remedies in relation to s 77A had been imported into the agreement and that the claimant was in breach of its obligations under the agreements by issuing the defendants with statements which did not comply with s 77A and by not repaying or re-crediting to the defendants interest or default sums paid by them during the alleged period of non-compliance and by virtue of its failure to indemnify the defendants in respect of its breach of s 77A. 

Power of attorney – Lasting power of attorney. The Court of Protection allowed an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and affairs made on the ground that the donee of the power had behaved in a way that contravened her authority or was not in the donor's best interests. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local planning authority to discharge a condition of the planning permission for a nine-turbine wind farm. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had not acted unlawfully in discharging the condition and the claimant had no expectation of consultation. Further, no exceptional circumstances had existed which had led to the conclusion that the authority had acted so unfairly as to have abused its powers. 

Loan – Recovery. The claimants brought proceedings, seeking to recover a loan that they claimed to have made to the defendants to allow them to purchase a farmhouse. The Chancery Division held that the relevant loan and charge deeds had been validly made, and that the defendants could not deny that the loan was recoverable. 

Solicitor – Costs. The proceedings concerned a claim by Edwin Coe LLP (Coe) against the first and second defendants, for sums said to be due in respect of the provision of legal services. Neither defendant had sought assessment, pursuant to s 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974, of any of the bills which formed the subject of the claims within one month of delivery. The defendants brought CPR Pt 20 proceedings against Coe, alleging negligence. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the CPR Pt 20 claim and gave judgment for Coe against the first and second defendants. 

Injunction – Mandatory injunction. The parties, which were both involved in insurance, entered into a standard terms of business agreement. The claimant company sought a mandatory injunction that money which had been removed from an account by the defendant company be repaired. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claimant had made out its case for a mandatory injunction that the money be paid back into the trust account.