Latest Cases

Land charge – General equitable charge. The proceedings concerned a dispute between two companies that had charges over the same property. An issue arose as to which of the charges had priority. The applicant company applied for a declaration that its charge would take priority. The Chancery Division dismissed the application and gave consideration to the meaning of a 'further advance' within s 49(3) of the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant Spanish civil engineering contractor issued proceedings against the defendant Government of Gibraltar following termination of a contract for the design and construction of a road and tunnel under the runaway of Gibraltar airport. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant's breaches of contract had been sufficient and serious enough to justify termination. Further, the defendant had validity terminated the contract, although service of notice of termination had not been at the designated office. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of highly trusted sponsor status due to its refusal rate greater than 20%. It contended that the Secretary of State ought to have looked into the individual cases, as circumstances were exceptional. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not made out its case that the grounds relied upon showed that the circumstances of the case were exceptional or were sufficiently compelling to require an exception to be made and the circumstances of the individual cases examined, notwithstanding the failure to meet the stated requirements. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimant criminal law solicitors sought judicial review of the lawfulness of the issue of a warrant and the searches subsequently carried out at their home. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that warrant had been unlawfully issued and executed. In particular, the warrant had been unlawful as, on the facts of the case, including the claimants' field of practice, the duty of full and frank disclosure had clearly required that the magistrates' court be told that the claimants had been solicitors and, consequently, that it had been highly likely that the terms of the warrant would include significant quantities of legally privileged material. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The claimant contended that the fourth defendant should be treated as having filed her costs budget comprising only the applicable court fees, under CPR 3.14, as she had served it six clear days before the hearing, rather than the requisite seven. The fourth defendant sought relief from sanctions. The Technology and Construction Court held that the fourth defendant could rely upon her costs budget as served, as the non-compliance or breach had been trivial and/or insignificant and/or inconsequential. 

Injunction – Interlocutory. The claimant musicians sought an interim injunction or specific performance to require the defendant Royal National Theatre to continue to engage them in the production of War Horse. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that, although there was a serious issue to be tried on the question of whether the Royal National Theatre had been contractually entitled to terminate the claimants' contracts on the grounds of redundancy, specific performance or a mandatory injunction would not be granted at trial. It further identified the previously unconsidered significant role of the right to artistic expression, protected by art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in considering the claimants' prospects at trial and the balance of convenience. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection granted an interim order for an injunction that the first respondent 94 year old who suffered dementia be prohibited from taking part in protests or communicating with the press and that the local authority be permitted to visit the first respondent twice weekly. The court held that, in relation to s 48(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the question of the first respondent's discussions or communications with the press was a matter on which it could be invited to exercise its powers. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection declared that the first respondent (IA) had capacity to make decisions about his: (i) ongoing medical treatment; (ii) future residence and care; and (iii) management of his property and affairs. On the evidence, IA displayed all the relevant attributes to satisfy the functionality test, pursuant to s 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and was able to make decisions in the relevant key areas. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Bangladeshi national sought a declaration and damages for his unlawful immigration detention. The Administrative Court held that para 16(1A) of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provided power to detain pending completion of the examination under para 2A of Sch 2 to the Act and a separate power to detain pending a decision on whether to cancel leave to enter. However, for a period of his detention, the Secretary of State had not been acting reasonably and with expedition to determine whether to cancel leave to enter. The claimant was only entitled to nominal damages because he would have been lawfully detained in any event. 

Arbitration – Stay of court proceedings. The defendant legal and business advisor appealed against the refusal to stay the claimants' claims against it, seeking relief under Pt III of the Solicitors Act 1974, pending arbitration. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the claims under Pt III of the Act, as the defendant was neither a solicitor nor a recognised body and, thus, did not fall within the statutory jurisdiction enabling the grant of such relief. It further stayed the claimants' amended claims invoking the court's inherent supervisory and ordinary jurisdiction pending arbitration.