Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. The claimant freeholders had successfully issued proceedings contending that a notice served by the defendants claiming collective enfranchisement had not complied with the requirements of s 13(3)(e) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that those matters required to be included on the notice by s 13(3)(e) went to the very heart of the right to collective enfranchisement and, consequently, the statutory scheme, on its proper interpretation, pointed clearly in favour of the invalidity of the notice by virtue of the non-compliance. 

European Union – Trade marks. Following the main judgment in the proceedings, in which orders were made against a number of websites that had been selling fake goods, the Chancery Division made similar orders against two further websites. 

Mortgage – Action by mortgagee for possession. The Chancery Division, in a claim by the assignee of a mortgage for possession of a property and a money judgment against the defendant, rejected both the defendant's defence and counterclaim and held that the claimant had proved its claim. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant had applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant, supported by a letter setting out a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS), issued by a college. However, before the date of the Secretary of State's decision on the application, the college withdrew the CAS as a result of an administrative error. The appellant's application was refused. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the general public law duty to act fairly had not imposed an obligation on the Secretary of State, when she had seen that the CAS letter on which the appellant's application for leave to remain was based had been withdrawn, to adjourn any decision on the application to give the appellant notice of the problem and an opportunity to rectify it. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co., (Safa Nicu) for: (i) annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 503/2011 implementing Regulation (EU) 961/2010 (on restrictive measures against Iran) and Council Regulation (EU) 267/2012; and (ii) compensation for non-material damage. However, Safa Nicu's claim for compensation in respect of material damage was dismissed. 

Costs – Security for costs. The proceedings concerned an action for patent infringement in respect of barriers which were used to prevent unauthorised intrusion from pirates onto ocean going ships. The applicant (the defendant in the main proceedings) sought security for costs, pursuant to CPR 25(3)(2)(c), on the basis that the claimant would be unable to pay its costs if so ordered. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC), in granting the application, held that the principles governing whether security for costs should be awarded were the same in the IPEC as in any other court. On the evidence, it was appropriate to make the order in the present case. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. Two actions were brought before the English courts in relation to a dispute over control of leading hotels in London. The second defendant hotel in issue was domiciled in England. The first defendant investor in the hotels, who was Irish, applied for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to try the claims. A master ruled that the English Court had jurisdiction under art 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) on the basis that the court had jurisdiction over the second defendant. The first defendant appealed. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that requirements of art 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation had been met and the master had been right to dismiss the applications. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The claimant construction company brought proceedings, seeking to enforce an adjudication decision. The defendants submitted that the decision could not be enforced, as there had been no valid contract between the parties. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, there had been a valid contract and so the decision could be enforced. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant failed to apply in a timely manner for a jury trial in relation to certain charges. A Master in a case management decision in the exercise of his discretion refused the claimant's application. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the decision and found that there were good practical reasons for the limit. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The appeal concerned the allocation of a surplus on the winding up of a plan established to provide pensions and other benefits for employees of certain companies in a group. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the courts below had erred in holding that a clause of the trust deed had been invalid. Further, the matter would be remitted for reconsideration of whether the first appellant could legitimately refuse agreement to a proposed uplift for inflation out of the surplus.