Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. In an insurance claim brought by Ted Baker plc, the Commercial Court held that where a claimant failed to beat a CPR pt 36 settlement offer made by a defendant, the mere fact that such defendant might fail on certain issues would not necessarily make it unjust to displace the general rule under CPR pt 36 that a defendant was entitled to costs where a claimant failed to obtain a judgment more advantageous than a defendant's CPR pt 36. offer. The defendants were entitled to 25% of their costs of the first part of the proceedings, assessed on a standard basis with interest and to an order for all their costs for the second part, to be assessed on a standard basis with interest. The claimants were to make an interim payment on account of costs. 

Pleading – Amendment. The claimant company appealed against the judge's refusal of permission to re-amend its particulars of claim in proceedings alleging dishonest breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance against the defendants. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the judge's decision had been a decision well within his case management discretion and a correct exercise of that power. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by BT Telecommuications PUE 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. 

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against the decision of a judge in the county court in which he made a declaration that the defendant held a property on trust for herself and the claimant in equal shares. The court held, amongst other things, that the facts found by the judge were not inconsistent with a common intention to share the beneficial interest in the property equally, in circumstances where that property and a previous property had been held in the defendant's sole name. The judge had found that the properties had been held in the defendant's sole name to enable her to claim benefits as a single women and then as a single mother. However, the court further held that it had not been necessary for the claimant to advance his unlawful agreement in order to make good his claim to a constructive trust. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to the United States to face trial for five extraterritorial terrorist offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was insufficient evidence to find reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence a potential witness would give in US proceedings had been obtained by torture. It rejected his grounds of appeal, alleging breaches of arts 3, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and found that the appellant's extradition was not barred by reason of forum, given that all alleged offences related to activity outside the United Kingdom. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant for an unpaid debt for the provision of electricity. The defendant failed to comply with court orders and judgment in default was granted in favour of the claimant. An application was made for relief from sanctions, which was granted and the judgment in default was also set aside. The claimant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the judge had erred in his application of CPR 3.9 and the appeal would be allowed. 

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.