Latest Cases

Bank – Banker/client relationship. The Commercial Court held that Barclay's bank was entitled to recover, in full, sums it claimed against the first defendant, as borrower, and against the second defendant, as guarantor. The court dismissed the defendants' defences to the claim and held that there had been no advisory relationship between the bank and the defendants, as alleged and, accordingly, no duty of care in respect of which the bank could be held to be in breach. 

Criminal law – Bail. The claimant was charged with grievously bodily harm with intent and threatening a person with a blade. He was denied bail at the Youth Court and appealed to the Crown Court. The Crown Court judge refused bail and the claimant applied for judicial review. Allowing the claim and quashing the decision to refuse bail upon stringent conditions, the Administrative Court held that in the instant case the reasons given by the judge for refusing bail could not have reasonably been relied upon to deny C bail. The judge had taken into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account at all. 

Insolvency – Jurisdiction. A winding up petition was presented to the Chancery Division in respect of a company in the United Kingdom. Joint provisional liquidators were appointed and the English court ordered that the English provisional liquidation of the company was a main proceeding within art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000. A public prosecutor in Luxembourg applied to a court in Luxembourg for the commencement of a liquidation proceeding in respect of the company there. The Chancery Division granted the joint provisional liquidators' application for a declaration that the public prosecutor's application was stayed by s 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants had been granted a freezing injunction in respect of an alleged fraud perpetrated by the defendants. The second defendant had tried, unsuccessfully, to have it discharged. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal and the claimants' cross-appeal. The issue of the claim being time-barred under Kazakh law could not have been dealt with on an interlocutory application and the judge had had a wide discretion to have made the findings that he had in respect of alleged non-disclosure of facts by the claimants. Further, the judge had been correct to have found that the first claimant had not had a good arguable case of its own based on the principle of reflective loss. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, among other things, that European Union law, in particular art 5(2)(b) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society), read in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that article, should be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which did not distinguish the situation in which the source from which a reproduction for private use was made was lawful from that in which that source was unlawful. 

Road traffic – Accident. In a personal injury case where liability was not in issue the court had to decide the issues of the level of daytime and night-time care for the claimant who was catastrophically injured in a road traffic accident. The Queen's Bench Division made findings relating to levels of care for day and night time, weekends and weekdays and other matters accordingly. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Pico Food GmbH (Pico) against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Pico and Mr Bogumil Sobieraj concerning the latter's application for registration of a figurative sign 'MILANOWEK CREAM FUDGE', representing a cow. 

Adoption – Application. The appellant had cared for a child for the first 18 months of his life. She was not related to him. The local authority obtained a placement order in respect of the child and he was placed with prospective adopters. The appellant applied within the adoption proceedings for leave to oppose. That application was refused and the judge also considered that any application that might be made by the appellant for a residence order under s 10(9) of the Children Act 1989 would be unjustified. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appellant's application could have been dealt with as an application for leave to apply for a residence order under s 29(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 but, on its merits, her application would be dismissed. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction on four counts of burglary in circumstances where the judge's directions to the jury were argued to be erroneous. The judge's directions could not be faulted. Moreover, there was compelling evidence against the defendant which deemed the convictions safe. 

Building contract – Construction. The parties entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) to develop property. The property was not developed in time, and the claimant sought to extend the JVA for three months to allow the development to go ahead. The defendant did not agree to the extension, and the property was sold outside the JVA. A dispute arose as to whether the claimant was entitled to a share in the proceeds of the property. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the evidence of M, who controlled the defendant, was to be preferred and the claimant's claim would fail.