Latest Cases

Contract – Enforceability. A winning lottery ticket was purchased. The purchase involved both the claimant and the defendant. The claimant claimed that there had been no discussion or agreement as to sharing the ticket. The defendant disputed that claim. The Queen's Bench Division, held that on the facts the parties had entered into a contract to jointly play the lottery on an equal basis. It was a term of the contract that any winnings should be shared equally or alternatively that such a term should be implied. The term represented the obvious, but unexpressed intention of the parties and that it was also necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. The whole point of playing the lottery jointly was to hopefully share the winnings jointly. 

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant was an eight-year-old girl with profound disabilities. Her injuries had been caused by the defendants' admitted negligence. The parties had reached agreement as to general damage. There was, however, a very substantial dispute in relation to future accommodation. The claimant sought the sum of £1.6m by way of interim payments in respect of accomodation. The Queen's Bench Division following the law allowed the application. 

Contempt of court – Counsel. The defendant barrister appealed against the finding that he was in contempt of court in the course of representing his client. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's finding that the defendant had been impertinent had not demonstrated an inability impartially to determine whether the conduct constituted a contempt of court. However, the email informing the defendant of the contempt hearing had clearly fallen short of the procedural requirements set out in the CPR. In cases of alleged contempt, strict observance of the provisions was essential. 

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. 

Evidence – Without prejudice correspondence. The first defendant applied to exclude evidence of a draft complaint concerning proposed New York proceedings filed by the claimants in support of their application for an anti-suit injunction on the grounds that the evidence was covered by without prejudice privilege. The claimants sought permission to adduce evidence of New York law. The Commercial Court refused the claimants permission to adduce evidence of New York law, as it was not reasonably required. It further held that, as a matter of English law, the draft complaint and its sending fell within the scope of without prejudice privilege. 

Telecommunications – Mobile telephone networks. Ofcom had decided that the claimant, BT, should not be allowed to introduce a new charging scheme because it had not been demonstrated that BT's new schedule of charges would produce consumer benefits. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) overturned that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, restored Ofcom's decision. The Supreme Court, in allowing BT's appeal, held that there had been no justification for the Court of Appeal to set aside the careful analysis of the tribunal. Contractually, BT was entitled to set its own charges, but only within limits which were fixed by the objectives of art 8 of Directive (EC) 2002/21 (on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services). 

Charity – Company. A charity, the Commonwealth Institute, was in voluntary liquidation. The liquidators applied to the court under s 112 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for directions on various issues. The Companies Court made a number of rulings on, among other things, the distribution of the property of the charity, and the compensation of trustees. 

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Sharif University of Technology in Iran for annulment of Council decision Decision 2012/829/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as it had listed that university in Annex II to Decision 2010/413. The General Court decided, inter alia, that the Council had produced no evidence from which it could be established that the applicant had carried out the alleged acts. 

Rates – Rateable occupation. The district judge upheld the respondent local authority's unoccupied non-domestic rate demand against the appellant company and rejected the appellant's argument that the properties were exempt on the ground that non-occupation was the result of dilapidations and the state of the properties was such that occupation was prohibited by law. The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that health and safety legislation did not prohibit occupation and the risk of breach of the legislation if the premises had been, without more, occupied did not suffice to exempt the appellant. 

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd (Sorinet) for annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as it had listed Sorinet in Annex II to Decision 2010/413; and (ii) Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP, in so far as it had maintained Sorinet's listing in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013, in so far as it had maintained Sorinet's listing in Annex IX to Implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012.