Latest Cases

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. 

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. The claimant company (Westbrook) had granted sub-underleases of almost all of the flats in a property to 612 companies (the SVPs). It sought a declaration that it was entitled to the freehold of the entire property. The defendant was the freeholder of the property. It challenged the entitlement of Westbrook to purchase. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the challenges to Westbrook's enfranchisement application failed. It was entitled to declarations as to its entitlement to enfranchise and other relief. 

Arbitration – Evidence. In the course of proceedings concerning damage suffered to a cargo of rice, a preliminary issue arose and the arbitrators made an award against the claimant. The claimant challenged the award under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The question arose as to whether the claimant was limited to the evidence that had been before the arbitrators, or whether it was entitled to adduce further evidence. The Commercial Court provided guidance, and held that the claimant would not be permitted to rely on the new evidence which it sought to adduce. 

Road traffic – Hackney carriage licence. The appellant local authority revoked the respondent's Hackney carriage licence. The respondent's appeal to the magistrates' court was allowed. The authority appealed by way of case stated. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the justices had been entitled to assess and evaluate each part of the evidence, including governmental guidance, and give such weight to each part as seemed to them fit. However, they had only been entitled to set aside the decision of the authority and substitute their own if they had come to the conclusion that the decision of the authority had been wrong. 

Company – Winding up. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application to continue an injunction granted to it to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition by the defendant company in circumstances where set-offs or cross-claims raised by the claimant did not approach the sum due to the defendant. 

Statute – Construction. The Attorney General for England and Wales referred a question to the Supreme Court, seeking to know whether, on the true construction of s 108 of, and Sch 7 to, the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill 2013 was within the legislative competence of the National Assembly of Wales. The Supreme Court held that, on the true construction of the legislation, the Bill related to agriculture and, hence, was within the legislative competence of the Assembly. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to revoke its sponsor status without considering its submissions. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the claim was not academic and the Secretary of State's proposed resolution was an attempt to avoid the formal quashing of the decisions. Further, the Secretary of State's offer to reconsider suffered from the same defect as the proposal and the court had to express some significant degree of disapproval of the Secretary of State's conduct. 

Equity – Fiduciary duty. The appellants were all involved in bribery with regard to the chartering of cargo vessels. At first instance, they were found to have acted in breach of fiduciary duty. They appealed a number of findings of fact made by the judge, and submitted that the judge had made errors in law concerning the available remedies. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appeal would be allowed to the extent of the award of profits against the first and third defendants. 

Stamp duty – Stamp duty land tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by Portland Gas Storage Ltd (Portland) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)(FTT) in which the FTT had struck out Portland's appeal on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal where there had been no appealable decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners as required by para 35(1) of Sch 10 to the Finance Act 2003. The tribunal decided that certain letters sent by the Revenue to Portland had amounted to an enquiry into the return at issue and a closure notice with the result that Portland had had a right of appeal against the decision at issue. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant's housing assistance, under s 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (the 1996 Act), had been revoked due to rent arrears and the defendant local authority declined to acknowledge any power to allow her to stay on the basis of a nil or peppercorn rent. The claimant and her children had then been accommodated in a bed and breakfast, pursuant to the authority's powers to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need, under s 17 of the Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act), but the authority declined to recognise any suitability requirement under the 1996 Act. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that, under s 206(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, the authority might charge a nil or peppercorn rent and that the authority might perform a duty arising under s 193(2) of the 1996 Act, inter alia, by securing accommodation (or payment) provided in the exercise of an authority's power under s 17(6) of the 1989 Act.