Latest Cases

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 54 of Directive (EC) 2004/39 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on markets in financial instruments), as amending certain directives and repealing one other. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr and Mrs Altmann and others and the Federal Office for the Supervision of Financial Services, concerning the latter's decision to refuse access to certain documents and information regarding Phoenix Kapitaldienst GmbH Gesellschaft für die Durchführung und Vermittlung von Vermögensanlagen. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant alleged that he was the victim of a campaign of abuse and vilification by the first defendant, who had not yet been identified in the proceedings. The second defendant operated the most widely used search engine in the world and searches made on the claimant's name produced, prominently, results which led to websites where the lies about which he complained were available to be read. A trial was scheduled and the second defendant expected its costs to be in the region of £1.68m by the end of the trial, which sum will have been spent in only five months. That was approximately £1m more than the Claimant expected to incur over the same period. The claimant applied for a costs capping order or a costs management order. The Queen's Bench held that a costs management order would be the more appropriate. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The issue before the Planning Court was whether an obligation imposed by an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 entered into by the claimant had survived a second grant of planning permission identical to the first, save for that obligation. The court held that, as a matter of law, the developer had been able to elect to continue and complete the development under the second planning permission, rather than the first planning permission. Further, it had, in fact, elected to continue and complete the development under the second planning permission. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT) making a further management order. It alleged that the FTT had had no jurisdiction to make the order under s 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the order was in respect of land outwith the leaseholders' premises, but which was properly 'in relation' to those premises. Accordingly, it was within the scope of s 24 of the Act and within the FTT's jurisdiction. 

Copyright – Infringement. The defendant director provided copyright software to another company whilst in the employ of the claimant company. The claimant brought proceedings for copyright infringement and breach of fiduciary duty. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that, among other things, the defendant had not acted with the claimant's permission, and the claim was no time barred. 

Will – Validity. Court of Session: In an action which concerned a testatrix who made a will in 2008 leaving most of her estate to her younger sister, but less than two weeks before her death from cancer in May 2010 executed a codicil and a new will which left a preferential legacy of £3m to the trustees of her liferent trust and reduced the legacy to the sister substantially, the court concluded that the sister's claim seeking reduction of the codicil and the new will on the grounds of (i) lack of testamentary capacity, (ii) undue influence and/or (iii) facility and circumvention failed. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant bank applied to commit the first defendant to prison for contempt for breaching two worldwide freezing orders. The Commercial Court found that the first defendant had failed to provide disclosure of his assets and had knowingly assisted companies' failure to provide disclosure of their assets. However, the other three grounds of alleged contempt were rejected, as the claimant had not established breach of the orders to the criminal standard. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant planning permission for a link road on the basis that it had failed to consider it jointly or cumulatively with a proposed urban extension. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had been entitled to conclude that the link road had not been an integral part of the urban extension, requiring joint consideration. Further, the assessment of the cumulative effects of the urban extension had been sufficient to meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1824. 

Child – Care proceedings. The proceedings concerned a child, aged 17 months, who had been placed in foster care for just over a year because of concerns regarding the ability of her learning disabled parents. The child was eventually reunited with the parents, who issued proceedings claiming damages. The Family Division held that a delay by a local authority in issuing care proceedings had been unjustified and inexcusable and its procedural failures had been in breach of the parents' human rights. The parents were each awarded £6,000 in damages. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The wife had applied for a judgment summons due to the husband's failure to make payments under a maintenance order. The hearing of her application had been adjourned a number of times on the husband's application. The husband had again applied for an adjournment on the ground that he was not sufficiently well enough to attend and that it would be wrong, given the criminal nature of the proceedings, to continue in his absence. The Family Division dismissed the husband's application having paid regard to the history of the wife's application, and the insufficiency of the medical evidence that had been produced which had been vague and had not explained why attendance had not been possible.