Latest Cases

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. 

Solicitor – Duty. The bank had issued proceedings against the defendant firm of solicitors for breach of trust in connection with a re-mortgage transaction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been entitled to find that the solicitors had acted in breach of trust in failing to use the bank's advance to fully discharge the prior charge on the property, but had erred in finding that the breach was limited to the amount of the shortfall which would have been necessary to fully discharge the prior charge in circumstances where the solicitors had had no authority to release any of the funds. However, the relief granted was equitable compensation calculated by reference to actual loss related to the undischarged prior charge. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the bank's appeal, affirmed the general approach to the assessment of equitable compensation for breach of trust as described in Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (a firm) [1995] 3 All ER 785. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the context of care proceedings relating to four children. The issue of habitual residence and jurisdiction of the English court arose. The Family Division held that it could not determine Tr's or Ty's habitual residence, nevertheless as both children were present in the jurisdiction and had been since the courts had been seised of the case therefore the court had jurisdiction for public law proceedings under art 13 of Council Regulation 2201/2003. 

Practice – Hearing. The appellants' extradition to Rwanda was sought to stand trial for offences committed in the course of the civil war. They sought to adduce witness evidence in a closed material procedure or for it to be disclosed only to the third respondent Crown Prosecution Service. The Supreme Court held that there was no basis for recognising or creating a closed material procedure as a new exception to the principle of open inter partes justice. Further, the judge had no special statutory power which could enable her to make a non-disclosure order in relation to the requesting state. However, anonymous evidence could be admitted only if the proceedings were fair. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division struck out part of the claimant solicitors' firm's claim for unpaid fees and costs on the basis that it had been guilty of abuse of process in reliance on deliberately exaggerated fees, fabricated documents and on a bill of costs which had been drawn up knowing it to be inaccurate. 

Contract – Rescission. Leipzig municipal water company (KWL) sold credit protection to the investment bank (UBS) and to two other banks (LBBW and Depfa) on four portfolios of investment grade bonds and other securities. It did so by means of a series of derivative products known as single tranche collateralised debt obligations (STCDOs). Defaults occurred following the global financial crisis of 2008-9, and UBS, LBBW and Depfa sought payment of sums due under the STCDOs. The Commercial Court made rulings concerning, among other things, the availability of rescission to the parties. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A was born in the jurisdiction of England and Wales in 2013 of unmarried Romanian parents. After his birth he was removed into care. There was an application before the court for the transfer of the case to Romania pursuant to art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27. The Family Division held that the balance lay overwhelmingly in favour of the case being a Romanian case, both in respect of Romania being better placed and the child's best interests. 

Immigration – Appeal. The claimant Pakistani national had extended leave to remain as a student before it was discovered that his test score had been cancelled as invalid due to evidence of fraud. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application for leave to remain and set directions for his removal. The claimant renewed his application for permission to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to remove him. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in refusing permission, rejected the claimant's arguments that he had in-country right of appeal. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender was 15 years old when she stabbed the deceased to death with a kitchen knife, for which she was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of 12 years, less the time spent on remand. She sought review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that it was clear that the offender had made exceptional and unforeseen progress such that it was clear that the tariff presently applicable to her was too long. Accordingly, the minimum term was to be reduced to 11 years, less time spent on remand. 

Family proceedings – Evidence. The local authority's application for care orders in respect of three children had been dismissed. The judge found that it was in the children's best interests to continue living with the father and that there was no real prospect of the father permitting the mother's destabilising influence to return to the family home. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the authority's appeal. The judge had not fully engaged with the detail of the evidence regarding the father's inability to recognise and provide for the children's emotional needs. Having not engaged with all the detail of the professional witnesses, the decision would be set aside and the matter remitted.