Latest Cases

Local authority – Social services. The defendant local authority decided to close an adult day centre. The claimant issued proceedings, contending that she and others should have been consulted and that the authority had failed to comply with the statutory public sector equality duty contained in s 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The judge dismissed the proceedings and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the authority's omission to consult the users and relatives on the closure of the centre before it had decided to close it had been unlawful, but that it had had regard to its public sector equality duty. 

Contract – Repudiation. In a dispute involving little or no law and depending upon the resolution of disputed evidence, the claimant lawyer, banker and corporate financier sought payment for his management of trade finance and an initial public offering for the defendants. The Commercial Court, in allowing his claim, found that the parties had entered a binding oral agreement, which had been repudiated by the defendants. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to US$2.9m for the wrongly deducted salary retainer and the balance of his success fee as to trade finance, and for damages of US$15.5m in respect of the success fee for the initial public offering. 

Company – Administration. The directors of an English company sought, among other things, an administration order and an order granting the proposed administrators liberty to enter into an immediate 'pre-pack' agreement (the SPA) for the sale and purchase of all the company's assets, as part of a scheme for the restructuring of a predominantly German-based group. The Companies Court granted the administration order where the proposed restructuring was the only available alternative to the liquidation of the company and the break-up of the group. It was a natural and proper use of language to describe the proposed sale as one which would be implemented under a court approved process, even though the actual decision to enter into the SPA would be taken by the proposed administrators. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. KR and BR were a couple who embarked on a surrogacy arrangement following difficulties they encountered in conceiving. WT was born to an unmarried surrogate mother SA, following the transfer of an embryo created by KR's gametes and eggs from an anonymous donor. KR and BR requested the court to make a parental order in their favour in respect of WT pursuant to s 54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The Family Division following consideration of the s 54 criteria, made the parental order as sought. 

Easement – Drainage. There was a dispute between the parties regarding a strip of land that lay between their neighbouring properties. The claimants also contended that they had the benefit of a drainage easement which connected an extension to their property with the drainage system installed beneath the defendants' property. The claimants were partly successful on the boundary dispute and wholly successful on the drainage dispute. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, following the production of fresh evidence by both parties, ordered that the boundary dispute be retried. The defendants' appeal on the drainage dispute was dismissed as the judge had been better placed to determine the issue and there was no basis upon which to depart from his order. Consequential costs orders were made. 

Landlord and tenant – Right to manage. A right to manage company (the RTM) applied under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to the tribunal to acquire the right to manage a building containing self contained flats. The freehold owner, the claimant opposed the application. In due course, the RTM withdrew the application and the claim and informed the valuation tribunal, who cancelled the hearing date. The claimant disagreed with that outcome for costs purposes and sought that the tribunal take jurisdiction. The tribunal refused and the claimant applied for judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court held that the tribunal had erred in concluding that it no longer had jurisdiction in relation to the application simply because the RTM had notified the tribunal of its wish to withdraw the application. 

Practice – Striking out. A claim had already been issued by G, the claimant, against L, the defendant, and dismissed. G sought to bring a new claim, raising, among other things, a trusts argument. L applied to strike out the new claim. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, a form of cause of action estoppel would apply, and it would be an abuse to allow the proceedings to continue. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which a failed Iraqi asylum seeker challenged a decision that his further submissions did not give rise to a fresh claim, the court held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus upon him to produce positive evidence demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that he could not return to Iraq and the respondent had not erred in law in applying the policy described in her decision letter that factors affecting the practicality of return, such as the difficulty of obtaining a travel document, should not be taken into account when considering the merits of an asylum or human rights claim. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) held that the applicant had been identified, in the relevant sense and manner as provided for by s 393(4) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in a final notice given by the Financial Conduct Authority to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA. The tribunal identified a two-stage process in which it considered whether the references were made to an individual, by reference solely to the terms of the notice, and secondly whether those references could be regarded as referring to anyone other than the applicant, by reference to external sources. 

Discrimination – Nationality, on the grounds of. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal (the tribunal) had not erred in holding to be justified an indirectly discriminatory criterion for entry to the two-year post graduate Foundation Programme for medical students. The tribunal had not erred in concluding that the criterion had been a reasonably necessary and proportionate way of achieving legitimate aims and so the indirect discrimination on grounds related to nationality had been justified in both domestic and European Union law.