Latest Cases

Indemnity – Construction of indemnity clause. A dispute had arisen between the parties regarding the interpretation of a sale and purchase agreement and whether the defendant had to reimburse the claimant for sums it had paid following the defendant's assessment to tax in the sum of US$313m in Uganda. The judge had interpreted the SPA in the claimant's favour. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct to hold that the disputed clauses were not conditions precedent, but he had erred in having failed to consider live points at the end of the hearing regarding the assessment of the sum owed. The court ordered that the defendant pay US$27m. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Identification evidence – Sufficiency of evidence – Misdirection – Unreasonable verdict. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of assault and robbery, the court held that emulator evidence and a dock identification were not inadmissible per se, and in any event the evidence for the Crown, looked at as a whole, amounted to a cogent case, the sheriff had not erred in failing to direct the jury as to the definition of assault and robbery, and the verdict could not be described as unreasonable in any respect. 

Education – Higher education. The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of a student loan due to the fact she only had discretionary leave to remain. The Administrative Court held that there had been no real engagement by the defendant Secretary of State in a justification of the rationality or proportionality of the blanket exclusion from eligibility for a student loan. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant brought arbitration proceedings against the defendant in the United States for the enforcement of a guarantee concerning acquisition of shares in a US coal mining operation. The arbitration tribunal made an award in favour of the claimant. The defendant company applied, under s 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996, for an order setting aside the award. Alternatively, the defendant applied for an adjournment of the decision on recognition and enforcement of the award pending the determination of proceedings filed by EGFL in New York challenging the award. The Commercial Court granted the adjournment, conditional upon the giving of security by EGFL for the full amount of the award. 

Social security – Disability living allowance. The defendant Secretary of State adopted a 20m walking criterion for receipt of a personal independence payment enhanced rate in the Social Security (Personal Independent Payment) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/377. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, challenging that decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been a proper opportunity to make comments on the 20m criterion and that the consultees had had adequate information. Further, the Secretary of State had clearly had the impact of the proposals and his duty to have regard to that impact, under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010, well in mind. 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove him and detain him pending his removal. The Secretary of State contended that the application should fail because the claimant had an alternative remedy. The Administrative Court considered the potential conflict in the jurisprudence of the High Court and the Upper Tribunal as to the principles governing when the jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised. It then refused to entertain the application, as an alternative remedy existed by way of out of country appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and that was the proper avenue for challenging the Secretary of State's decision. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant, H, was a lawyer with the defendant Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Two colleagues made allegations against him and a disciplinary process was commenced. H made an application to the Chancery Division, seeking an interim injunction restraining the pursuit of his disciplinary process. In dismissing the application, the court held that if there had been any degree of unfairness in what had happened, then it had not been of such a degree as to taint the whole process to such an extent as to require it, even arguably, to be brought to a halt. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant company, Lilly, created a pharmaceutical product. It sought a declaration that any application for a supplementary protection certificate relying, for its legal basis, on a patent owned by the defendant company, HGS, and based on a medicinal product containing T, an antibody, would be invalid. In the course of proceedings, a question was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Chancery Division considered the CJEU's response to the question and held that, as a result, Lilly's claim for a declaration would be dismissed. 

Restraint of trade by agreement – Employer and employee. The claimant sought to invoke a restrictive covenant in the defendant's employment contract following the defendant's resignation to work for another company. The judge, in considering the restrictive covenant had added correcting words and granted the claimant an injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, discharged the injunction and held that the wording of the restrictive covenant had been clear and had not required additional words to be read in by the judge. 

Equity – Undue influence. The deceased had transferred three sums of money to the defendants prior to her death. The judge found presumed undue influence and unjust enrichment against the defendants, and ordered them to reimburse the deceased's estate. They appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the transactions had called for an explanation and that the presumption of undue influence had not been rebutted. Further, there was no merit in the contention that the judge had erred in his approach to quantum, as the deceased had had no immediate desire to make a new will to exclude the claimants.