Latest Cases

Practice – Damages. The proceedings arose out of a defamation action. The defendants were in breach of an unless order and were consequently debarred from defending the claim. Leave was given to enter judgment against those defendants. The claimant applied for aggravated damages. The Queen's Bench Division held that, in the circumstances, it was entirely appropriate that there should be an award of aggravated damages and, accordingly, awarded £70,000 by way of compensatory and aggravated damages. 

Family proceedings – Costs. Following a three trial under the Hague Convention to establish the habitual residence of a child, the mother, who had succeeded in demonstrating that the habitual residence was the United Kingdom, applied to recover from the father her costs of responding to his application. The Family Division, having considered the conduct of both parties, ordered the father to pay half of the mother's costs. 

Company – Compulsory winding up. The Privy Council, in dismissing an appeal by liquidators of a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, held that, although the Bermuda court had a power to make an order against persons subject to its personal jurisdiction in favour of foreign liquidators for production of information for the purpose of identifying and locating assets of the company, provided they had a similar right under the domestic law of the court which appointed them, the material which the liquidators sought in Bermuda would not be obtainable under the law of the Cayman Islands pursuant to which the winding up was being carried out there. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant senior coroner, with the fiat of the Attorney General, applied for an order to quash an inquisition into the death of the deceased and for an order that a fresh inquest be held. The claimant relied on fresh information, which might cast doubt upon his conclusion that the deceased intended to take his own life. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that, as a result of the new facts and evidence, it was necessary and desirable in the interests of justice, under s 13(1) of the Coroners Act 1988, that another inquest should be held. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant companies brought proceedings against the defendant companies, contending that the defendants had purchased products from a competitor of the first claimant, Globe, in breach of an agreement. The Commercial Court held that Globe's claim for breach of contract would succeed, while a claim for negligent misstatement would fail, owing to a lack of duty of care owed to Globe by the defendants. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The proceedings concerned individuals who had unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the United Kingdom and whose cases had been referred to the 'legacy' programme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there was no obligation, in the form of a commitment, on the part of the Secretary of State to 'conclude' cases that fell within the legacy programme that related to asylum cases, either by the grant of leave to remain or by effecting removal of the applicant from the UK. The various applications and appeal in respect of judicial review were all refused. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Volvo Trademark Holding AB against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), concerning opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.,(Hebei) regarding the application by Hebei for registration of a figurative sign 'LOVOL' in black letters as a Community trade mark. 

Insurance – Claim. A fire occurred at the claimant company's premises. The defendant insurer avoided the policy, on the ground that R, the director of the claimant, or someone working on his behalf, had started the fire. The London Mercantile Court held that, on the evidence, the defendant had clearly shown to the appropriate standard that R, or someone acting on his behalf, had deliberately caused the fire. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. An application was made to the Companies Court for the approval of an insurance business transfer scheme under which the long-term insurance business of Prudential Annuities Ltd was to transferred to the Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. The court held that, on the evidence, the scheme would be sanctioned. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court considered the circumstances in which a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) entitled a person subject to an extradition order to challenge that decision again after challenges had been rejected by the Divisional Court and the ECtHR. It held that permission to make the application was needed and then there would be consideration of whether the tests for re-opening had been fulfilled. If those tests were satisfied, the merits of whether or not the final decision had been wrong in the light of the changed circumstances should be considered.