Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned an application for a stay, arising out of proceedings brought by the authority, which the defendant contended breached a term of the contract, made on the FIDIC General Conditions of Contract for EPC/Turnkey Projects issued by FIDIC in 1999, which provided that disputes would be adjudicated by a dispute adjudication board. The Technology and Construction Court, in granting a stay, held that the contract required that the determination of the present dispute was to be by way of adjudication and amicable settlement and, only failing that, by litigation. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Vietnamese national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision granting her and her children discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no indication at all in any of the documents that any assessment had ever been made by the Secretary of State of what the best interests of the claimant's elder child might be, in accordance with s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. 

Estoppel – Res judicata. The claimant lending company, CFB, sought to execute a warrant of possession on property owned by the defendants. The defendants had defaulted on two loans, applying to a house and a set of cottages. A dispute arose as to whether CFB would be prevented by cause of action estoppel from relying upon the house charge as security for the cottages loan. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that CFB would be prevented from doing so, but that the question of whether an enforceable contract had existed so that CFB would not be able to enforce the charge on the house so long as instalments on the house loan were paid would be referred to the county court. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In proceedings between the mother and father, the Family Division made certain findings of fact. The children had been taken to England from Pakistan in both 2011 and 2012 because that was what the father and his family decided should happen. The removals were unilateral and thus unlawful actions with grave and long lasting consequences for the children's relationship with their mother. The mother cared deeply for them and was entirely committed to their welfare. Nevertheless, the children would not be restored to the habitation of their mother. 

Human Rights – Torture. The claimant appealed against the judge's decision that the framework for control and restraint of those subject to removal from the United Kingdom by aircraft was compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and that the publication of a redacted Use of Force Training Manual was lawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no basis for finding a breach of arts 2 or 3 of the Convention, nor was there any basis for departing from the judge's analysis and conclusions as to the lawfulness of the redactions. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The proceedings concerned a fire at a warehouse that had started in a forklift truck. A dispute arose between the appellant company, B, which had entered into a maintenance agreement with the third respondent company regarding the forklift truck, and the respondents, Jet, who either owned or were interested in the warehouse. At first instance, the court allowed Jet's application for an order to disclose certain documents relating to maintenance. The Court of Appeal dismissed B's appeal, holding that there was no ground for saying that the judge had erred in making the order. 

Costs – Order for costs. In a dispute concerning costs, the claimant was required to file Further Information, which it failed to file on time as the result of an oversight. The claimant submitted that, among other things, there had been no breach of the CPR in failing to provide the Further Information at the commencement of the detailed assessment proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, although there had been breach, the claimant's appeal against the finding of the costs judge would be allowed on the basis that an incorrect sanction had been applied. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arts 7(2) and 8(6) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco) should be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, rather than establishing an identical minimum excise duty that was applicable to all cigarettes, established a minimum excise duty that was applicable only to cigarettes with a retail selling price lower than that of cigarettes in the most popular price category. 

Race relations – Discrimination. The employment tribunal struck out two aspects of the employee's claim of race discrimination and unlawful detriment by reason of his having made a protected disclosure. It made other aspects of the claim subject to deposit orders. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, among other things, the tribunal had not erred in the striking out, and had erred only with regard to one of the aspects made subject to a deposit order. 

Criminal law – Sexual assault. The offender had been convicted of assault by penetration contrary to s 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment. The victim had been in a lengthy relationship with the offender and there had been previous incidences of domestic violence. In sentencing, the judge had taken into account, amongst other things, a plea made by the victim, who had sought to withdraw her statement at trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that given the background and the gravity of the offence, the sentence had been unduly lenient. Consequently, the sentence was increased to seven years' imprisonment.