Latest Cases

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In the course of proceedings concerning a trade mark dispute between the claimant company, Merck KGaA and the defendant company, a preliminary issue arose as to the governing law of an agreement entered into between the parties. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, the agreement was governed by German law rather than the law of New Jersey. 

Pension – Pension scheme. In the course of the administration of a bank, which ran a pension scheme, the claimant trustee sought a declaration that a debt owed to the pension scheme was assignable. The Chancery Division considered whether the trustee of a pension scheme was able to assign the debt owed to the pension scheme which was created by s 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. It held that, among other things, a declaration to that effect would be made. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The question in the appeal was whether the judge had been wrong to stay a claim by which the claimants had challenged the defendant company's entitlement to recover legal fees in circumstances where, as they contended, the court itself had and should have exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors and others in relation to the matters of which they complained. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been nothing unsatisfactory in the court having ordered a stay and that the court was bound to stay the claims, unless the claimants established that the arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. 

Crown – Proceedings against. The proceedings concerned claims in tort and applications for judicial review against the defendant Ministries and Secretaries of State involving mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States forces following transfer of custody from the hands of British forces. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claims in tort were not barred by reason of the doctrines of state immunity or foreign act of state. The claims in tort would be barred by the doctrine of Crown act of state if the defendants were able to show that the arrest and detention by British forces had been authorised pursuant to a lawful policy. The applications for judicial review were given permission to proceed where there was no reason to refuse such permission. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendant Secretary of State was not entitled to make a second deportation order or an order quashing the order, following the revocation of an earlier order. He further sought damages and/or compensation for false imprisonment and for violation of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the second deportation order had been unlawful when made absent a sufficient change of circumstances. Accordingly, the claimant had been falsely imprisoned and imprisoned in breach of art 5 of the Convention. 

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant pharmacist appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council to remove his name from the register of pharmacists. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FPP had not erred in finding that the appellant had not been subjected to unacceptable, inappropriate or undue pressure and had lacked insight into his actions. It concluded that there was no error in the imposition of the sanction. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimant was the employer under a building contract. Two adjudication awards were made in the claimant's favour in relation to alleged delay and defective works done by the defendant in respect of new mechanical electrical security and air conditioning systems at a property. The claimant sought to enforce the awards. The claimant offered to settle if payment of a certain sum was made by defendant. The defendant made the payment. The issue was whether the claimant was entitled to her costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant was entitled to costs of £5,500. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The parties (H and W) were granted a decree nisi following a long marriage. In due course, the judge made an ancillary relief order dealing with the financial affairs of the parties. The judge made a costs order against H. H appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, modified the ancillary relief order to a limited extent, but found that the costs order reflected the judge's findings to the H's attitude to W's claims. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned the mother's appeal against a decision about her contact with her children and the imposition of a restriction order, under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, on her making further applications in relation to the children for two years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's omission to set out his conclusions about the contact centre material in his judgment was fatal to his decision. 

Criminal law – Offensive weapons. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who was found guilty of having a bladed article, namely two knives, with him in a public place, without reasonable excuse, the court held that where lack of knowledge of the offending item was proffered as an excuse by an accused person in evidence, as in this case, it was almost inevitable that an appropriate direction should be given that the jury might find such an excuse to exist, however the sheriff had made no mention of the defence of reasonable excuse in his charge to the jury.