Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant housemate in the 2012 series of Big Brother issued libel proceedings concerning two broadcasts of Big Brother. The producer and broadcaster sought summary judgment on the grounds that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the pleaded meanings and that they were not capable of being defamatory. The Queen's Bench Division, in granting the application, held that neither of the broadcasts had been capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimant or any other meanings defamatory of her. 

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. 

Bank – Banker/client relationship. Following the first claimant's default on a senior facilities agreement, the first defendant bank had disclosed reports to the second defendant competitor of the claimants. In considering the claimant's claims for breach of confidentiality, the Chancery Division considered that the first defendant had breached its contractual obligation of confidence and summarily assessed damages of £5,000 to reflect the amount that the first defendant would have had to pay for the work to be done if the second defendant had not been a company within the first claimant's group. The claim against the second defendant for breach of an equitable obligation of confidence was dismissed. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Privilege. The claimant applied for the destruction of certain documents claiming confidentiality and privilege. The defendant maintained that privilege had been waived. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was no foundation in fact for the defendants' argument about waiver. Given the highly confidential nature of the privileged document, there was no arguable basis for contending that there had been a waiver by the claimant of his privilege in the material.