Latest Cases

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. 

Company – Administration. A company entered into administration. The company was exposed to possible claims for breaches of trust after it failed, as required by the rules contained in the Financial Services Authority Handbook, to segregate money received from or on behalf of clients. The administrators of the company and the company, as trustee of the client money trust, applied to the Companies Court to enable a settlement agreement to be made between the company, as trustee of the trust, and the general estate of the company, acting by its joint administrators. The court, in allowing the application, held that the terms of the proposed settlement were in the best interests of both the client money pool and the general estate. 

Costs – Order for costs. The court previously gave judgment in favour of the claimant solicitors and ordered that they should be paid their costs of the claim. The Divisional Court summarily assessed their costs in the sum of £63,508.17. 

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. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 should be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a state that was a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement) and which was proprietor of a vessel flying the flag of a third country, by which maritime transport services were provided from or to a state that was a party to the EEA Agreement, could rely on the freedom to provide services, provided that it could, due to its operation of that vessel, be classed as a provider of those services and that the persons for whom the services were intended were established in states that were parties to the EEA Agreement other than that in which that company was established. 

Health and safety at work – Health and safety inspector. The defendant inspector employed by the Health and Safety Executive served a prohibition notice against the appellant sub-contractor on the basis that the appellant had not prevented access to conducting parts of the electrical system that 'can be energised and made live'. On appeal by the appellant, the employment tribunal (the tribunal) modified the notice, but upheld it. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the tribunal had been wrong to decide that the only means of dealing with the situation had been the issue of the notice. 

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned an action brought by the claimant for infringement of three United Kingdom registered trade marks concerning the word 'WILKO' and for passing off. The defendant admitted infringement. The claimant sought summary judgment and an order that the defendant disclose the names and addresses of its suppliers of the infringing goods. The Chancery Division held that, whilst there was jurisdiction to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order, on the balance of irreparable harm, as appeared from the evidence, the disclosure sought would not be granted. 

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. 

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.