Latest Cases

Solicitor – Merger of firms of solicitors. The claimant solicitors' firm sought judicial review of the defendant Legal Ombudsman's decision that it was responsible for a complaint made against another firm, as its successor. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant was 'an authorised person', under s 128(1) of the Legal Services Act 2007, over which the Legal Ombudsman had jurisdiction. That was on the basis that 'person', under s 132(2) of the Act, was not limited to an individual human being. Accordingly, the claimant, due to the transfer of the other firm's business, was the proper respondent to the complaint. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The defendant firm of solicitors conceded that its conduct in the course of acting for the claimants in a property transaction had been negligent, but disputed that its negligence had caused any loss beyond the nominal sum of £250 in circumstances where the claimants had mitigated their loss. The Chancery Division held that the claimants loss had been eradicated by mitigation and that their was no evidence to justify an award of damages other than or in excess of £250. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed an action brought by Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd (Kaatsu) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to an application by Kaatsu for registration of the word sign 'KAATSU' as a Community trade mark. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to erect a wind turbine to the interested party. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had not made information available to allow effective participation in democratic decision-making and could not demonstrate that it would inevitably have come to the same conclusion. Further, the authority had been wrong to assume that there had been a financial involvement, allowing a higher noise level. 

Company – Shares. The Privy Council dismissed an appeal arising out of a dispute between the respondent and his six brothers over the ownership of shares in British Virgin Islands registered company. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. In a public procurement case relating to a proposed single supplier framework agreement for media planning and buying services, the claimant, as the losing tenderer issued proceedings within 30 days of being informed of its failure to win contract, under the Public Contract Regulations. That led to a suspension on the placing of the contract with the successful tenderer. The defendant as contracting authority applied to lift the statutory suspension so that it could place the contract with the successful tenderer. The Technology and Construction Court lifted the suspension as it found that there was no serious issue to be tried. 

Bank – Securities. The proceedings concerned bonds that had been issued by the Republic of Argentina. The bonds had been issued but, following default by the Republic, had been replaced by new bonds if the bond holders had wished. The claimant bondholders had not accepted the transfer and had retained their original bonds. Proceedings had taken place in New York concerning the rank of the various bonds and payments made by the Republic to the first defendant bank in respect of the new bonds. The claimants, who included holders of the original bonds, had applied to the High Court for declarations and injunctive relief regarding a payment made by the Republic to the bank in respect of the new bonds. The Chancery Division adjourned the application for declarations to allow the new bondholders an opportunity to intervene and refused, in the circumstances, to grant injunctive relief where the New York court had already ordered that the bank was to retain the money. 

Advertising – Comparative advertising. Sainsbury's sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant Independent Reviewer of Advertising Standards Authority Adjudications that there had been no substantial flaw in a decision of the first interested party, the Advertising Standards Authority (the ASA) with respect to Tesco's price comparison scheme. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Independent Reviewer had not been wrong in law or Wednesbury unreasonable in concluding that the ASA's decision had not been substantially flawed. 

Will – Family provision. The claimant brought a claim in respect of her deceased mother's estate, after she was excluded from her mother's will. The issue was whether she had a claim on the basis of proprietary estoppel or under the under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the facts, any mention of inheritance had not been intended to be taken seriously or been such that might reasonably have been expected to have been relied on by the claimant. Further, taking into account all the factors under s 3 of the Act, the value judgment was that the claimant's conduct outweighed all of the factors in her favour and her claim under the act had to fail. 

Human rights – Infringement of human rights. Over 600 cases were currently pending in the High Court in which Iraqi civilians were claiming damages from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for their allegedly unlawful detention and alleged ill treatment by British armed forces on various dates during the period when British forces were present in Iraq. Certain preliminary issues came to be tried. The issues concerned whether the MOD's duty under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 overrod any obligations under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the availability of aggravated damages and which law governed its availability.