Latest Cases

Housing – Local authority. The applicant had been removed from the local authority's register for an allocation of permanent accommodation following a change in its policy which meant that, as she had been placed in suitable temporary accommodation with a private landlord, she was excluded from the register. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in hearing the application for judicial review, held that, on the basis that the setting of qualification criteria under s 160ZA(7) of the Housing Act 1996 was subject to the reasonable preference duty under s 166A(3) of that Act, that part of the authority's housing allocation scheme had been unlawful. 

Criminal law – Grievous bodily harm. The defendant had been convicted of violent disorder (count 1), manslaughter (count 2) and wounding with intent pursuant to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (count 4), following a violent attack by a group of youths, in which a man was seriously injured and his son was killed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against conviction on count 4 and substituted it for a conviction for unlawful wounding pursuant to s 20 of the Act. His sentence for the s 18 offence was quashed and substituted for a sentence of four-and-a half years' detention in respect of the s 20 offence. 

Contract – Parties to contract. The claimants brought contractual claims, alleging breach of contract, under which a freight forward agreement position was to be transferred to the first claimant, under a guarantee, whereby the sixth defendant undertook to buy back the positions. The Commercial Court held that first claimant was entitled to recover from the defendants damages for losses flowing from the failure to buy back the forward positions, with credit allowed for payments made by the defendants or on their behalf and freight discounts allowed against the sums due. The fourth defendant was entitled to recover for the diminution in the value of his shareholding in a company, which owned the first defendant company. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) allowed the application by British Telecommunications plc to vary an interim relief order made by the tribunal pending an appeal by British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (Sky) against the decision of the Office of Communications to vary the conditions in the broadcasting licences of Sky for its core premium sports channels. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a mother's appeal against an order that she pay the father's costs in respect of all applications relating to the children since May 2012 and held that it had been wrong in principle and on the facts for the judge to have made an order for costs against her. 

Specific performance – Uncertainty as to terms. The claimant company, 118, made an agreement with the defendant company, IDS, whereby IDS was permitted to use data supplied by 118. 118 became concerned that IDS was misusing the data. 118 made an application for specific performance in which it sought, among other things, to enter IDS's premises and examine commercially sensitive information. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that 118 had not shown a sufficiently clear case that it was entitled to enter for the purposes for which it wished to enter, nor as to what it was allowed to do once it had entered. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. PC executed an Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of her two sons JC and AC. JC conceded that he had intermingled his mother's money with his own but also with his company's funds. AC had also benefited by such behaviour. The Court of Protection General Visitor indicated that PC lacked capacity to revoke the LPA herself. The Public Guardian applied for the court to revoke the LPA. The Court of Protection allowed the application and a member of the panel of deputies was to apply to be appointed as PC's deputy for property. 

European Union – Common agricultural policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation and validity of art 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) 795/2004 (laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers), as amended. The request had been made in an appeal brought by Mr Feakins against a decision of the Scottish Ministers concerning the determination of the reference amount for calculating his single payment entitlements under Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned an application for summary judgment by the claimant against both defendants. An issue arose as to whether the claimant could bring the claim it made in the action on the basis of assignments. The Commercial Court held that the claimant succeeded and that it could bring the claims on the basis of the assignments. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimants brought a contractual claim against the defendants, alleging, among other things, asset stripping. The claimants applied for an order that the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants be committed to prison for civil contempt of court for breach of a worldwide freezing order, alleging their failure to provide adequate disclosure of documents and information in accordance with the freezing order and order continuing it. The Commercial Court held that, on the facts, contempt had been proved against some, but not all defendants.