Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.