Latest Cases

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant employees under a pension scheme appealed against the pensions ombudsman's determination of a dispute regarding the interpretation of the relevant consolidated version of the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order 1992, SI 1992/129, (the order). The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that, on the true interpretation of the relevant clause in the order, the words 'his pensionable pay for the year ending with the relevant date' meant pensionable pay referable to, relating to, or in respect of, his employment or work done in the year in question. Accordingly, when calculating pensionable pay for the year ending with the relevant date, that pay did not include arrears of pay for work done in earlier years, but which were paid in the year ending with the relevant date. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants claimed damages and an injunction for libel, slander, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence, breach of contract and conspiracy on the basis that the defendants were alleged to have accused the claimants of trickery and defrauding their clients through a publication which it was alleged the defendant's were responsible. There was a failure to file a defence and an order was made debarring the defendants from defending. The first and third defendants applied for relief from sanctions. The Queen's Bench Division considering CPR 3.9 held that the application by the first defendant for relief against sanctions would be refused. The application by the third defendant for relief against sanctions would be allowed. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, under s 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, requiring him to pay the sum of £308,380.29 within six months with a default term of three years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had erred in accepting that £98,400 should be included in the benefit figure on the basis of a specialised index as to the cost of living. Accordingly, £209,280.29 was substituted as the amount that the defendant had to pay and as being the value of the benefit and the available amount. 

Extradition – Hearing. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition to Poland and also made an order for costs, in the sum of £500, against the appellant. The appellant appealed both the extradition order and the order for costs. Although the appeal against extradition was dismissed, the appeal against the order for costs was allowed, on the grounds that the court had jurisdiction to vary the order and the order had been neither just nor reasonable. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Mr Noble, who traded as a sole trader under the name K & B C eilings, against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) which had upheld the rejection by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners of Mr Noble's deduction of input tax in his VAT tax returns. The tribunal decided that the invoices to which the input tax were said to relate had not been valid invoices as the services shown on those invoices had not been supplied to Mr Noble as alleged. 

False imprisonment – Damages. The police had been called to an incident in which the appellant had been implicated. The officer had blocked the appellant in a doorway and told him to calm down otherwise he would be arrested. The appellant pushed the officer and a fight broke out. The appellant's claim for damages for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal in respect of the claim for false imprisonment. There had been a brief 'technical' imprisonment arising from the appellant's unlawful detention in the doorway for which he would be awarded £5. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant brought proceedings, contending that it was entitled to payment of a success fee under the terms of an engagement under which it agreed to provide services to the defendant company. The issue was whether the claimant's right to payment of a success fee was conditional on proof that its activities were an effective cause of the success in question being achieved. The Commercial Court, in granting the claimant's application for summary judgment, held that, where the desired event had been achieved, the claimant was entitled to its fee without the need for further inquiry as to whether it had been an effective cause of that event. 

Practice – Interest. A judgment was given for the claimant company in the Russian court, but later set aside. However, the principal sums came to be paid, because the claimant identified assets of the defendant company within the Dutch jurisdiction. The awards did not mention interest. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, there was no ex nihilo nil fit principle which precluded the enforcement of the awards. The interest on the awards would not be enforceable in the Russian courts, but was in England. However, whether it ought to be awarded as a matter of discretion was for later determination. 

Nationality – British nationality. The claimant's application for naturalisation had been refused on the basis that he lacked good character due to his deception. He sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendant Secretary of State had erred in law in her consideration of deception and good character when considering the naturalisation application. Further, the Secretary of State had not breached the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The claimant entered into a share purchase agreement (SPA) with the first defendant insured by the second defendant. Under the SPA, the claimant acquired from the first defendant the entire issued share capital in Kwik-Fit Insurance Services Ltd (KFIS) for a consideration of £214.75m. The first defendant breached warranties under the SPA and the claimant brought a claim against both defendants. The claim settled and the issue of quantum remained. The claimant claimed that the proper quantum of its warranty claim was £17,635,000, giving rise to a claim under the policy of £12.635m. The second defendant contended that the proper quantum of the warranty claim was £8,792,000 giving rise to a claim under the policy of £3.792m. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's claim against the second defendant was entitled to succeed in the principal sum of £12,63m.