Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Licence to occupy premises. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the occupier of a mobile home against a decision of the Court of Appeal that a letter sent to the occupier by the owner of a residential site on which the occupier had stationed his mobile home, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, amounted to a notice that met the requirements of para 4 of Sch 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 with the result that it had been reasonable to terminate that agreement following the occupier's anti-social activities. 

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 – 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. 

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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant challenged an enforcement notice which had been issued following his conversion of a dwelling house into five flats. The inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, upheld the notice and refused planning permission for an alternative scheme. The judge allowed the appellant's appeal and held that the inspector had erred in that a relevant power which could have brought about the proposed conversion had not been considered. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that the inspector's conclusion, that he had not power to consider the alternative scheme under s 174(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, had been correct. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The recorder granted a care order in relation to L in favour of the appellant local authority, but refused to grant a placement order. The recorder had given his main reasons for his decision in his first judgment and also issued an addendum. He gave a further judgment when he refused the appellant local authority's application for permission to appeal. The authority appealed against the refusal of a placement order in respect of L and contended, inter alia, that the judgments had been inconsistent with each other. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held, inter alia, that to justify a decision such as that at issue would require the clearest of reasoning and that had been absent from the recorder's judgments. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The applicant prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection complained of breaches of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given the delay in commencing the extended sex offenders treatment programme required to show he was no longer a risk. The European Court on Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no violation of art 5(1) of the Convention. A real opportunity for rehabilitation had been provided to the applicant, and there had been no unreasonable delay in providing him access to assessments and courses. 

Landlord and tenant – Service charge. The proceedings concerned the claimant lessees' liability to pay the service charges claimed by the defendant lessors. The Chancery Division had held, inter alia, that the correct approach to whether s 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 required a landlord to consult on qualifying works was to aggregate all works in any given year, without division into separate sets of qualifying works (the aggregating approach). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the lessors' appeal in part as to the qualifying works issue, held that the aggregating approach was wrong and would give rise to serious practical problems. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom to pursue her established private and family life. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) quashed the decision, as there had been no reference to the circumstances beyond the considerations contained in para 276ADE of the Immigration Rules. However, no further relief would be ordered because the Secretary of State had subsequently made a lawful decision on the application for leave to remain outside the Rules and it was unnecessary to require her to make a further decision.