Latest Cases

Cohabitation – Unmarried couple. The proceedings concerned the entitlement of the claimant to provision from the deceased's estate. She had lived with the deceased for some time. The court determined, as a preliminary issue, that she was covered by the Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975. The claimants appealed against that finding. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the court had been entitled to come to that conclusion. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign judgment. Judgment was acquired by the claimant company against the defendant in the Russian court. The claimant sought to enforce the judgment against the defendant in the English court. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, there was no substance in the defendant's arguments, and hence the claimant was entitled to judgment. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant Secretary of State refused to appoint a registered intermediary to assist the claimant young man with a significant learning disability and Asperger's Syndrome in his trial for dishonestly receiving a motor vehicle. The claimant sought judicial review. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to consider the terms of s 33BA of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 when formulating the prompt for his restriction of the assistance available to the claimant. As there was a risk of unfairness, the Secretary of State would be directed to reconsider his decision. 

Solicitor – Dishonesty. The Chancery Division struck out a claim by a solicitor for the withdrawal of the notice of intervention into her practice where there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant being able to show good grounds for challenging the intervention and no prospect of succeeding in her claim. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The claimants had succeeded in obtaining compensation from the defendant creditor company on the basis that the relationship between them had been unfair within the meaning of s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the defendant had been liable for the misrepresentations and breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules of a company deemed its agent, which had led to the claimants obtaining a loan and payment protection insurance. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action by Intel Corp (Intel) for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under art 82 [EC] and art 54 of the European Economic Area Agreement or, alternatively, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Intel. The General Court decided that both Intel's arguments for annulment of that decision and its arguments that the fine at issue was disproportionate were without merit. 

Practice – Civil litigation. In the course of civil proceedings, the parties were required to serve costs budgets in the form of precedent H. The issue was whether the defendant's 'precedent H' form was a nullity as a result of the fact that it had not been signed by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman. The Technology and Construction Court held that, whilst the form had not been signed by a 'senior legal representative' within the meaning of CPR PD 3E, that had not rendered the defendant's costs budget a nullity and no question of a need for relief from sanctions had arisen. 

Negligence – Railway. Part of a tree fell from the first defendant's garden onto a railway line, causing damage to the claimant company's train. The claimant brought proceedings against the first defendant and the second defendant, who was a tree surgeon, for negligence. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, neither defendant had been negligent. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother came to court seeking to vary a previous order made in relation to Hague Convention proceedings by the high court, on the basis of a change of circumstances. The Family Division considered whether there was power for a court to set aside such an order under r 4.1(6) of the Family Procedure Rules which stated that 'A power of the court under these rules to make an order includes a power to vary or revoke the order.' It was held that the power existed and the order was set aside. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant company sought to purchase a telecommunications firm. In order to facilitate the purchase, it made agreements with the defendants. The claimant brought proceedings, contending that the defendants had breached the agreements. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the agreement between the parties, the defendants had not been given additional assurances as alleged, and the claim would be allowed.