Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Power of attorney – Enduring power of attorney. The proceedings concerned the validity of certain provisions in M's lasting powers of attorneys (LPA), which raised the issue of whether the donor of an LPA could appoint more than one attorney to act jointly with survivorship, by expressly re-appointing the continuing attorney or attorneys. The Court of Protection held that the safest way to achieve the effect of joint attorneyship with survivorship would be for the donor to execute two LPAs: the first having appointed the attorneys to act jointly, and the second having appointed them to act jointly and severally, with a condition that the second LPA would come into operation when the first LPA failed for any reason. 

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. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The proceedings concerned an appeal against the master's refusal to grant relief from sanction by extending time to serve particulars of claim. At the time the master considered the matter, he had relied solely on the guidance in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd([2014] 2 All ER 430) (Mitchell), as the judgment in Denton v White(154 ConLR 1) (Denton) had not yet been handed down. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the master had applied the Mitchell guidance correctly and his decision stood up to scrutiny, even when studied alongside the later, amplified, Denton guidance. 

European Union – Reference to European court. The present proceedings arose from two claims for judicial review, the formal object of which was the intention and obligation of the defendant Secretary of State to implement European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40. The parties had agreed a series of proposed questions for referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union and a number of organisations wished to be categorised as parties. The Administrative Court held that the draft reference would be amended to make it expressly clear that the court considered the organisations to be parties for the purposes of their participation. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the course of proceedings relating to the care of two twin boys, the Family Court made a number of rulings that, among other things, restricted but did not remove the father's parental rights, and required the parents to obtain the permission of the court before being allowed to make any further applications under the Children Act 1989 in the next five years. 

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. 

Damages – Assessment. The defendants were members of the claimant organisation, which represented and provided services to the removal and storage industry. When their membership lapsed, they failed to remove comments suggesting that they were still members. The claimant obtained summary judgment against the defendants. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court made rulings on the basis by which damages were to be awarded. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 80/987 (relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between the applicant and the Netherlands Management Board of the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body concerning the latter's refusal to pay the applicant an insolvency benefit on the ground that he was a third-country national who was not legally resident in the Netherlands.