Latest Cases

Practice – Civil litigation. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. Various interim orders were made, the effect of which was that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. The Supreme court held that there was no good reason to interfere in the case management of the trial judges or of the decision of the Court of Appeal. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. As a preliminary issue in a libel action brought by a member of the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Queen's Bench Division determined the meaning of the words complained of. 

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when she had seen that the CAS letter on which the appellant's application for leave to remain was based had been withdrawn, to adjourn any decision on the application to give the appellant notice of the problem and an opportunity to rectify it. 

Negligence – Damage. The claimants were chemical process operators who claimed damages for loss of earnings from the defendant employer. They accepted that the claims depended on establishing the presence of actionable injury on standard tortious principles. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claims holding that when analysed, the claim was one for pure economic loss. 

Gift – Inter vivos gift. The Chancery Division held that a substantial cash gift made by an elderly woman to her daughter prior to her death had been procured by the daughter's exercise of undue influence over her mother. The court also considered the correct approach to an inter vivos gift in light of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

Company – Winding up. In the course of winding up proceedings concerning two land banking companies, an order was made that advertisement of the winding up petitions made against the companies should be restrained. In the present hearing, the Chancery Division considered whether that order should be continued. The court held that the interest of the customers who had purchased land from the companies should prevail, and that the companies' application to continue the order would be dismissed. 

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. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Privy Council held that proceedings in the Royal Court of Jersey had not been brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in a trust deed. 

European Union – Public service contract. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Alfastar Benelux SA (Alfastar) for annulment of the decision of the European Council not to select the tender submitted by Alfastar response to the restricted call for tenders UCA 218/07, for the provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer. 

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.