Latest Cases

Time – Extension of time. The applicant had applied for permission to extend the time for filing its respondent's notice to an appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the principles laid down in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2014] 2 All ER 430) as explained in Denton and others v TH White Ltd and another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others ([2014] All ER (D) 53 (Jul)) applied to applications for an extension of time. Applying those principles, the application was allowed. 

European Union – Commission. In the course of proceedings concerning the defendant airline's alleged involvement with a cartel, the European Commission made a decision. There was dispute as to whether a redacted version of the decision could be made available to the parties. The Chancery Division held that it would be appropriate to create a confidentiality ring between the parties, among whose members the decision could be shared, with the added safeguard that the claimants would be barred from using the decision to commence any further proceedings. 

Human rights – Freedom of expression. The applicant, 'the naked rambler', issued proceedings concerning his arrests, prosecutions, convictions and sentences of imprisonment, invoking, in particular, arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that the applicant's public nudity could be seen as a form of expression, which had been interfered with. However, the repressive measures taken had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime. Further, even if art 8 of the Convention was applicable, any interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life had been justified. 

Costs – Order for costs. The third party, a solicitor, appealed against a third party costs order imposed in respect of his role in possession proceedings brought against his wife. The judge had found that the third party had been controlling the possession proceedings and had generated a defence for his wife which he found to be without merit. The Chancery Division held that, notwithstanding that there had been no finding of dishonesty in respect of the defendant, the pursuit of speculative litigation fell into the same category as impropriety and the judge had reached a decision which had been open to him on the facts. 

Practice – Hearing. The claimant company, ENRC, had instructed the defendant solicitors firm to investigate allegations of corruption, but subsequently objected to the fees that they sought to charge. ENRC sought to have the sums charged taxed. The deputy master declined ENRC's application. On appeal, the Chancery Division held that the hearing of the application and any subsequent assessment pursuant to s 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974, would be heard in private. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A placement order had been made in respect of a six year old child, the court having dispensed with the mother's consent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the mother's appeal as the judge had not applied the wrong test in having dispensed with her consent, nor had the judge failed to adequately analyse the expert evidence that had been before her. 

Personal Injury: Quantum case. Road traffic accident. The claimant, a child, was awarded £2,000 in general damages in an approved settlement. She suffered from a soft tissue injury affecting the capsule and collateral ligaments of the IP joint of the left thumb after she fell from her seat in a school bus. Her acute symptoms, including swelling, pain, stiffness and decreased dexterity, resolved one month post-accident. Full functional recovery occurred within four months post-accident. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought damages for unlawful immigration detention for four years and seven months. The defendant Secretary of State conceded unlawfulness as to the first five days, when he had not been given notice of detention and two months, in which an unlawful blanket policy had been applied. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant substantial damages of £500 for the first five days and nominal damages of £100 for the further two months. No further period of detention had been unlawful. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The defendants, trading through a firm, engaged the claimant company to carry out works of repair to carriageways and footpath. A dispute was referred to adjudication where it was held that the claimant was entitled to payment of its retention in the full sum claimed plus interest. The claimant applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award. The Technology and Construction Court, allowing the application, held that the claimant was entitled to summary judgment and it was not open for the defendants to raise a jurisdictional issue, which had not previously been raised. 

Land – Adverse Possession. The proceedings arose out of a disputed claim to land in St Vincent and the Grenadines, in which the claimant claimed that neither of the defendants had any title to the parcels of land which they occupied. The first defendant's claim to the land derived from his having purchased it in 1996 from the executors of ER's will. He had, therefore, not been in occupation himself for 12 years before the action was brought in 2004, and so his case depended on ER or his executors having had good title to pass to him. The Privy Council, in applying the correct legislation, allowed the defendants' appeal and held that the defendants' title to the disputed land was good.