Latest Cases

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. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The applicant for judicial review (J) had been assessed by the respondent local authority as being a child in need for the purposes of s 17 of the Children Act 1989. The family were fairground travellers and part of the Gypsy community. J was provided with nursery services as part of his child in need plan. The authority told the family that the services could not 'travel' with them. J's application for judicial review of that decision was successful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the authority's appeal and held that, on a purposive construction of s 17 of the Act, a local authority had the power to provide services for a child in need who they had assessed, regardless of the circumstances which had led to that child being no longer physically present in the area of that local authority. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Landlord and tenant – Possession. The appellants' applications to set aside an order for possession and to prevent or suspend execution of the subsequent warrant for possession were dismissed. The appellants applied, under CPR 52.17, to re-open the appeal from the order for possession and appealed against the order dismissing their application to prevent or suspend execution of the warrant for possession. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that the pre-conditions specified in CPR 52.17 had not been satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Nigerian nationals sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions refusing them leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been required to give separate consideration to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in her decisions and that there had been no adequate assessments made outside the Immigration Rules, resulting in unlawful decisions. The errors were not immaterial, as it could not be concluded with any degree of confidence that the claimants' claims would necessarily fail.