Latest Cases

Execution – Charging order. The claimant issued CPR Pt 8 proceedings to enforce a charging order. The defendant produced a declaration of trust, which recited that the lease of the property in question had been granted to her in her capacity as a trustee. Other evidence produced included a transcript of a 1996 judgment in respect of other proceedings brought against the defendant. The master was not persuaded as to the authenticity of the declaration of trust and made an order enforcing the final charging order. The defendant appealed. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the master was bound to address what the district judge, in the 1996 judgment, had said about the material before him, even if the master had not had a copy of that material. 

Criminal law – Sexual assault. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a defendant who had been convicted of both sexual assault contrary to s 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and robbery contrary to s 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, arising out of the same incident. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence to a limited extent but held that the judge had been perfectly entitled to move outside the recommended range for the combination of two offences, if he had intended to pass concurrent terms. 

Adoption – Practice. The parents were convicted of child cruelty and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment each. Two of the parents' children were placed for adoption and suitable families were found to adopt them. The Family Division considered whether to make an order allowing the forenames and surnames of the children to be changed to protect their anonymity from a campaign aimed against any prospective adopters. The court held that there was no alternative but to make the order sought. 

Insurance – Claim. The proceedings arose out of a serious fire at the Sugar Hut Club, Essex in 2009. A dispute arose as to, inter alia, the amount of business interruption losses to which the claimants were entitled. In particular, the parties disagreed as to the calculation of the overall loss of turnover. The Commercial Court held that the claimants were entitled to recover the net sums as calculated in accordance with the judgment, using a modified version of the claimants' expert's approach, together with interest. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. On an application for review of the offender's minimum term under para 3 of Sch 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Queen's Bench Division held that the appropriate minimum term was 14 years' imprisonment less 184 days spent on remand. The court held that there had been exceptional and outstanding progress so as to justify a reduction in the minimum term. 

Employment – Equal pay for equal work. The present proceedings concerned the claim by female employees of a local authority for equal pay in respect of a certain period of their employment. The employment tribunal decided at a pre-hearing review that the authority had failed to establish that the difference in pay over that period had been due to a material factor which had not been the difference of sex. Consequently, the tribunal held that the employees were not precluded from pursuing those claims in respect of that period. Although the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the tribunal had erred in its reasons for arriving at that decision, it upheld the tribunal's decision for different reasons. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned an appeal against a ruling that the powers of the defendant Independent Police Complaints Commission, when reporting on a 'special requirements' investigation of a compliant about a police officer's conduct, were confined to stating whether the officer had a case to answer in misconduct proceedings and did not extend to expressing findings on the reasonableness and/or legality of the officer's conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that, in a 'special requirements' investigation, it was beyond the powers of the investigators to purport, themselves, to decide the merits of a case that they considered had called for an answer. 

Adjudication – Award. The claimant engaged the first named defendant to carry out works at his flat. The defendant referred a dispute over alleged unpaid fees for work done to adjudication. The adjudicator found in favour of the claimant that the sum claimed by the defendant was not due to it. However, he further found that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant as claimed in accounts submitted after the adjudication had started. The claimant applied for summary judgment, contending for the sum claimed in his accounts. The Technology and Construction Court held that the adjudicator had been right to determine that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant and he was not entitled to summary judgment on that sum. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The employment tribunal had decided, as a preliminary issue, that the claimants were 'workers' for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1988, thereby entitling them to pursue claims for national minimum wage and holiday pay. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against that finding, deciding that the tribunal had not approached the question of worker status correctly and had not given sufficient reasons for its decision. The matter was remitted to be heard afresh. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The main proceedings concerned the sale and disposal of the interests of the claimants and others in shares in one or more corporate entities which owned a football club, to purchasers connected with a well-known businessmen Bernie Ecclestone and another individual. The defendants had been retained and instructed by the claimants and others in relation to the transaction. The claimants sought relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 in respect of its failure to serve notice on the defendants of the existence of funding arrangements. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that, despite the need to encourage compliance, it was not just to withhold relief from sanction in the circumstances of the case.