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. 

Contract – Condition. The defendants paid a deposit for the purchase of a property, but failed to complete the purchase. The claimants commenced proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of the contract between the parties, the claimants were entitled to damages of £210,000 in respect of the defendants' breach of contract. 

Criminal law – Conviction. The defendants, D1 and D2, had been convicted of the murder of a British soldier. D1 had been sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order and D2 had been sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 45 years. D1 sought permission to appeal against conviction and sentence and D2, having been granted leave, appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, refused D1's applications. The submission that the judge had erred in law in his direction to the jury as to the definition of murder, namely, that the 'Queen's peace' meant no more than the deceased had not been engaged in a war or rebellion against the state, was rejected. Further, the court dismissed D2's appeal and held that the judge had been entitled to pass the sentence he had. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Interim remedy. The claimant sought, amongst other things, a stay of art 5A of the Export Control (Russia, Crimea and Sevastopol Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2014, SI 2014/2932. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the provisions were sufficiently certain and there was no risk of serious or irreparable damage to the claimant. Further, interim relief would inevitably risk lessening the effectiveness of the European Union sanctions, such that the balance of convenience plainly favoured allowing art 5A of the Order to come into effect. 

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. 

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. 

Compensation – Criminal Injuries. The appeal concerned the ability of a child, CP, to claim criminal injuries compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), as a result of being born with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, as a direct consequence of her mother's excessive drinking while pregnant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed CP's appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber). Among other things, the court rejected CP's contention that a foetus was capable of being 'any other person' within the meaning of s 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and held that, if the foetus was not another person at the time of the administration of the noxious substance, the offence could not be complete at that point. 

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 4 of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83 (on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted) and arts 3 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in proceedings between A, B and C, who were third country nationals, and the Netherlands State Secretary for Security and Justice concerning the rejection of their applications for asylum in the Netherlands.