Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. In the course of proceedings, the appellant was required to provide documentation by an order of the court. She failed to do so, and her claim was struck out. The appellant applied for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9(1). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the instant circumstances were another instance of a history of delay and non-compliance by the appellant, and that the justice of the case did not require her to be granted relief from sanctions. The application would be dismissed. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimants alleged that the defendant had, at the relevant time, acted as the de facto director of the second claimant company (NL), in which he had shares. The first claimant brought a claim against the defendant for damages for breach of contract, contending that the defendant had failed to transfer shares in NL which he had sold to it within the time specified in two agreements. NL brought a claim, contending that the defendant had acted in breach of his fiduciary duty to NL. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claims, held that, whilst the first claimant had established a breach of contract by the defendant in failing to transfer the shares in NL on or after the relevant date, it had failed to establish the loss it claimed to have been caused by that breach. Further, NL had failed to prove that the defendant had been a de facto director of NL during the relevant period and, accordingly, the claims had to fail. 

Employment – Procedure. The employment tribunal had recused itself after it had received information from a third party that was prejudicial principally to one party in the case. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in dismissing the employees appeal against the tribunal's decision to recuse itself, held that the tribunal's decision had been right. Of central importance was having a fair trial before a tribunal that both was and appeared to be impartial. The EAT gave guidance as to the approach tribunals should take if approached by a third party about the merits of a case. 

Corporation tax – Capital allowances. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayers, which were companies within the Next group, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) rejecting their claim to allowances in respect of expenditure incurred on certain buildings used by the taxpayer for storing goods. The tribunal decided that the buildings at issue were not 'industrial buildings' for the purposes of s 18(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by Rani Refreshments FZCO against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Aujan Industries Co. and Global-Invest Bartosk Turek (Global-Invest) relating to the application by Global-Invest for registration, as a Community word mark, of a figurative sign depicting the word 'Sani.' 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants challenged the lawfulness of their grants of leave to remain on the basis that para 276BE of the Immigration Rules fettered the defendant Secretary of State's discretion to grant the child applicants longer than 30 months leave to remain, which was inimical to the fact-sensitive consideration of their childrens best interests, as required by s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that para 276BE of the Immigration Rules was not unlawful as alleged and that the decision to grant the claimants a period of 30 months as requested had not been unlawful. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Disclosure. In the context of libel proceedings, the applicants sought third party disclosure. One third party objected. The Queen's Bench Division held that the statements made by the objecting third party were unlikely to support or adversely affect the case and disclosure was unnecessary to fairly dispose of the claim or to save costs. In relation to the other third parties, the criteria set out in CPR 31.17(3)(a) and (b) were satisfied and orders for disclosure would be made in the exercise of discretion. In the particular circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighed the interests of the individual third parties. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) applied under s 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 for an order to transfer the personal injury claims, made by serving and former service personnel alleging noise induced hearing loss caused by service from existing County Courts all around the country to the High Court. A master dismissed the application. The MOD appealed. The Queen's Beench Division decided that the master had considered the various factors and had come to a decision which had been correct. 

Patent – Validity. The claimant, Philips, brought an action, contending that the Nintendo's Wii computer game console infringed three of its patents concerning a method and apparatus for controlling the movement of a virtual body in a computer generated virtual environment and a hand held pointing device used to control electrical apparatus. The Patents Court held that two of the claimant's patents, as amended, were valid and had been infringed. 

Practice – Claim. The claimant company brought a claim against the defendants, including its former directors, for damages or compensation by way of indemnity against any liability that might be established against it in proceedings brought against it in Florida. The first defendant, who previously lived in Switzerland but was resident in London contended that the claim should be dismissed on the grounds that no steps to serve it had been taken within the period of four months allowed by CPR 7.5(1). The Chancery Division, in granting the declaration, held that the claim form had not been served within the time limit imposed by CPR 7.5 and that an order for the extension of time under 7.6(3) would not be made as the claimant had not shown that it had taken all reasonable steps to comply with CPR 7.5.