Latest Cases

Contract – Construction of contract. The claimant applied for a declaration as to the meaning of a provision concerning reinvestment criteria, as defined in a collective management agreement (CMA), which governed a collateralised loan obligation structure (the CLO). The first defendant had, under the CLO, raised €602m through the issues of 14 classes of notes. An issue arose as to whether money, representing unscheduled principal proceeds, was available for reinvestment, in circumstances where the notes had been downgraded by a ratings group in 2010 and, subsequently upgraded in 2012. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, reversed the Chancellor of the High Court's decision and held that the disputed provision did not have the effect of giving a historic downgrade in the notes a level of pre-dominance within the structure of the scheme that would prevent future reinvestment. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The second defendant operated a waste transfer station under a permit granted under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 by the claimant, the Environment Agency. The first defendant was the waste site manager. A suspension notice was issued seeking to reduce the accumulated pile of waste on the site by imposing conditions. Following an alleged lack of compliance with that notice, the claimant applied for committal of the defendants for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application finding that there had been too much uncertainty as to what and how the relevant part of the order was to be complied with for it to be enforced by the process of contempt. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a libel case brought by the claimant against the defendant, the trial judge determined the meanings of the words complained of. Following that determination, the defendant applied to re-amend their defence. In a case management decision, the Queen's Bench Division, applying established principle, held that the amendments would not be allowed but that nevertheless the defendants would get the opportunity to defend their case. 

Electricity – Supply. The claimant owned a power station, but intended to become a predominantly biomass fuelled generator. In order to do so, it applied for an investment contract from the government. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, to which the defendant Secretary of State had delegated the decision, determined that the claimant satisfied its selection criteria at the initial application stages, but decided that, at the final application phase, the claimant did not satisfy its selection criteria and was ineligible. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant was a solicitor who failed to pay costs and a wasted costs order made against him. The respondent Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that the appellant could not simply ignore the court order, but that he had not failed to deal appropriately with the regulator. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the SDT's findings had been correct. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned the care of a young child, A, whose parents were Polish. The court made an order that ruled out any alternative family placement, including the notion of a placement in Poland with A's grandparents. The parents appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, even if the judge's words had not inappropriately ruled out the grandparents, there had at least been a misunderstanding leading to the severe limiting of placement options. Further, the authority had fallen short of what was expected of it, and the process that it had implemented had been unsatisfactory. The care order and placement for adoption order would be set aside and replaced for the time being by an interim care order. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The Professional Conduct Committee of the first respondent General Chiropractic Council found that the second respondent had been guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and imposed a six-month suspension order, without provisions for any review. The appellant Professional Standards Authority referred the case to court. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that there was plainly evidence which supported additional allegations of dishonesty. Further, the appeal against the sanction would be allowed, primarily because of the lack of provision for review. 

Solicitors – Complaints – Time bar. Court of Session: Refusing a solicitor's appeal against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's decision that although the normal one year time-limit had not not met there were exceptional circumstances for accepting a complaint against him for investigation, the court held that the appellant had failed to establish any material error of law by the SLCC, nor any other ground of challenge to its decision to accept the complaint for investigation. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and of arts 31 and 34 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area provisions which related to freedom of establishment. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Nordea Bank Danmark A/S, a company incorporated under Danish law, against decisions of the Danish Ministry of Taxation reincorporating into its basis of assessment losses previously deducted in respect of some of its permanent establishments abroad. 

Immigration – Rules. The appellant foreign nationals had all been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State had determined that their removal would be proportionate. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed all of their appeals and gave guidance on the obligations of the Secretary of State under para 353B (exceptional circumstances) of the Immigration Rules.