Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Assignment of lease. The defendants had leased premises from the claimant company. The defendants wished to leave the premises and assign the lease to a third party (TCA). TCA moved in to the premises and paid the rent. The defendants signed a deed of transfer and left it with their solicitor, who also acted for TCA. When TCA left the premises, the claimant sought payment of rent from the defendants and the defendants counterclaimed for a declaration was no longer vested in them following its assignment to TCA. The Recorder held that there had never been an effective assignment of the lease, that the claimant was not estopped from asserting that the defendants had remained its tenants and that the claimant was not precluded from asserting that the defendants were liable under the covenants contained in the lease. Further, he found that there the parties had never acted upon any common assumption that TCA had been assignee. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal on the ground that, on the facts as found by the Recorder, his conclusions were unassailable. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The General Court of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request has been made in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Edgard De Clercq and others, inter alia, for having infringed, on several occasions, an obligation to make a declaration in respect of posted workers imposed by Belgian national legislation. 

Injunction – Summary procedure. On an application for summary judgment for trespass to land, the Chancery Division gave summary judgment in respect of certain issues in which it held that the defendants had no realistic prospect of defending the claim for an injunction at trial. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee had committed assaults in the workplace because of his paranoid schizophrenic illness. The employment tribunal found that the employer had dismissed him because of him having committed acts of gross misconduct and that it had had reasonable grounds for its belief in that regard. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's apparent failure to consider whether there had been mitigating circumstances had made its decision unsafe. 

Divorce – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing a wife's appeal in respect of the distribution of property and allocation of spousal maintenance following divorce, held that none of the grounds of appeal had persuaded it that the judge had been in error either in the internal elements of the analysis which she had undertaken or in the overall conclusions to which she had come. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Max Mara Fashion Group Srl for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Max Mara Fashion Group Srl and Mackays Stores Ltd (Mackays) regarding the application by Mackays for registration of a figurative mark 'M&Co.' as a Community trade mark. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. A dispute arose concerning the capacity of CT. The Court of Protection found in favour of CT's daughter, EY, and held that CT had had capacity to sever a joint tenancy on property that he owned. EY sought an order for costs against the Office of the Public Guardian. The court held that, in the circumstances, EY had been aggressive and disingenuous, and would be required to pay her own costs. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The child, on the father's admission, had been battered on several occasions, between birth and the age of four months. The court was asked to decide on the scale or degree of the mother's knowledge of what the father was doing. The Family Division held that it was satisfied that the mother had known that the father had been harming their daughter, but for certain reasons, she chose not to take any action to protect her. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The claimant independent financial advisers sought judicial review of the defendant Financial Ombudsman Service's decisions refusing to stay proceedings against them pending Commercial Court litigation. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the ombudsmen had understood the basis upon which the applications for stays had been made and there was no identifiable error in their approach to the applications. Their reasons were clearly expressed and easily understood. There had been no errors of law and the decisions had not been irrational. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant local authority for its allegedly negligent failure to remove her from her mother's care, and its liability for the physical and sexual abuse allegedly suffered in foster care. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the negligence allegations failed on the facts. Further, as the authority had no control over the foster parents, it was not vicariously liable for their acts and it would not be fair, just and reasonable for a non-delegable duty to be imposed.