Latest Cases

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. 

Health and safety at work – Health and safety inspector. The appellants appealed against the decision of the employment tribunal, upholding prohibition notices issued on the basis that building works were being carried out in a dangerous fashion. The Administrative Court held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the issue it had had to determine. Applying the proper test, the prohibition notices against the first appellant had been valid, as he had been in sole control of the site at the material time. However, the tribunal had erred in affirming the notices in the second appellant's case, absent evidence that she had been in joint sole control of the site. 

Landlord and tenant – Determination of lease. In the course of a dispute with the local authority, the defendants sought to determine the lease on premises rented from the claimant company, Sirhowy. Sirhowy contended that breaches committed by the defendants were such as to prevent the lease from being determined. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the defendants could not be considered to have observed and performed all their covenants when they had served notice to determine the lease. It followed that the notice had not have taken effect. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), amongst other things, dismissed the appeal by Bear Scotland Ltd, Hertel (UK) Ltd (Hertel) and Amec Group Ltd (Amec) against a decision of the employment tribunal that payments for non-guaranteed overtime were part of normal remuneration and were to be included as such in the calculation of holiday leave taken under reg 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833; and (ii) allowed the appeal by Hertel and Amec against the tribunal's findings that the employees could claim the consequent arrears of pay as being unlawful deductions from their pay under the Employment Rights Act 1996 insofar as in any case a period of more than three months had elapsed between such deduction. 

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. 

Trustee – Bank. The first defendant was a beneficiary of five New Zealand trusts. In July 2014, orders were made against him that, among other things, required him to disclose the identities of the trustees and other people connected to the trusts. The trustees applied to vary or discharge the order made against them. The Chancery Division held that, subject to restricting the identity of the members of a confidentiality club, the application would be dismissed. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant was a sound engineer who specialised in restoring historic classical recordings. He entered into a contract with the defendant whereby landmark opera recordings would be restored, reproduced and sold in CD form. The claimant brought a claim for breach of contract against the defendant. The defendant and its operational arm applied for the action to be struck out for, among other things, extraordinary and inexcusable delay. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's conduct, taken overall, was in breach of CPR 1.3 (d), (e) and (f) and that the claim should be struck out for abuse of process and/or for failure to comply with an order of the court. 

Discovery – Production of documents. The first claimant applied for permission to use 22 documents disclosed in English proceedings by the Serious Frauds Office (the SFO) in Guernsey proceedings. The documents arose from liaison between the SFO and Guernsey authorities concerning an investigation into suspected fraud and related offences. The judge granted permission for two of three purposes and the first claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly evaluated the conflicting public interests and had reached a decision which could not be impugned. 

Proceeds of crime – Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The National Crime Agency (NCA) made a claim, pursuant to s 243(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), for a civil recovery order concerning various properties and accounts owned by the first defendant or held in the names of various members of his family, including his wife. The main issue was whether a civil recovery order should be made in respect of two properties to which the wife contended she had a claim under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1984. The Queen's Bench Division held that the court was obliged to make an order under s 266(1) of POCA and did not have an unfettered discretion or indeed any discretion at all in respect of it. Part 5 of POCA was deliberately structured in favour of the making of a CRO once the court had determined that a particular property was 'recoverable property.' 

Contract – Specific performance. In the proceedings, the claimant (Liberty) sought specific performance of obligations relating to a performance bond and two collateral warranties under a contract for a development project (the contract). The Technology and Construction Court considered, among other things, whether specific performance should be ordered regarding certain warranties and the first defendant's obligation to produce a performance bond.