Latest Cases

Contract – Offer and acceptance. The parties entered a distribution agreement in respect of the 'Virulite device' for the elimination of cold sores. The agreement was terminated by the defendant by notice. The claimant disputed the defendant's entitlement to terminate the agreement and claimed substantial damages. The defendant justified their termination on the grounds of a contractual variation. The Queen's Bench Division held that, applying established law, there had been a contractual variation and accordingly the defendant was not entitled to terminate the agreement on 31 January 2011. Its purported termination amounted to a repudiatory breach which the claimant had been entitled to accept. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decided that the disposal by an Isle of Man Company, Rondini Ltd, of an interest in land in Lancashire to a charity was not zero-rated pursuant to Item 2 of Group 15 of Sch 9 to the Value Added Tax (Isle of Man) Act 1996. 

Prison – Prisoner. The claimant prisoner sought, by way of judicial review, to challenge the lawfulness of guidance issued by the defendant Parole Board (PB) to its panels on the test to be applied when considering the re-release after recall to custody of a prisoner who was serving a determinate sentence of imprisonment. Dismissing the claim, the Divisional Court held that when exercising its power under s 255C(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the test that the PB should apply had been the statutory test of whether the PB was satisfied that it was not necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment – Leave to amend – Claim alleging infringement of rights owned by various claimants in materials and data relating to professional football matches played in England, Wales and Scotland. The proceedings concerned the rights owned by various claimants in materials and data relating to professional football matches played in England, Wales and Scotland. Liability had been established against the first and second defendants and another company. However, permission was granted for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Chancery Division refused the claimants' application to re-amend its particulars of claim as the amendment sought would be an abuse of process. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Sentencing. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against their convictions and sentences by three appellants who were convicted of assault to severe injury, abduction and robbery, the court rejected contentions that there was insufficient evidence of antecedent concert and that the trial judge's directions on mixed statements were inadequate, and held that the judge was correct to conclude that the only basis for distinguishing between the appellants was by comparing their criminal records and that he could not be faulted in his selection of appropriate periods of incarceration. 

Disclosure – Disclosure of documents. After a search warrant was executed at the defendant's premises, a judge ordered the disclosure of the information laid before the justices in support of the application for the search warrant and notes made by the legal adviser to the justices. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had had jurisdiction to hear the disclosure application, but had not applied the correct procedure. Further, the exercise undertaken by the judge had not amounted to a proper balancing exercise and the public interest in withholding the information was clearly stronger than that served by ordering disclosure. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Two cases were listed for hearing together because they both raised issues concerning the qualifications necessary for the grant of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant or a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant under the points based system in Pt 6A of the Immigration Rules 1994 (HC 395) (the Rules). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the qualifications of the claimants in the first action were not eligible for points as a UK recognised bachelor or postgraduate degree. The claimants in the second action had failed to establish that delegation of the recognition role the National Recognition Information Centre for the United Kingdom was unlawful. 

Probate – Grant. The deceased had moved to Spain 18 years prior to his death, and had executed two wills. Under the first, he left his residuary estate in Spain to the fourth defendant. Under the second, he left his residuary estate outside of Spain to the British National Party (BNP). In giving directions as to the distribution of the estate under a Pt 8 claim, the Chancery Division held that it would have been wrong to direct the executor to make a distribution of the estate to the BNP under Pt IV of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Instead, he directed that the estate be paid out to the fourth and fifth defendants under intestacy. 

Building contract – Sub-contractors. The Technology and Construction Court considered two preliminary issues relating to a dispute as to the construction of a warehouse. The court held that the defendant company's causes of action in tort against two sub-contractors were time-barred by virtue of s 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, and that an attempt to assign the benefit of a warranty from one of the sub-contractors (Jubb) to the claimant company, without seeking Jubb's consent, did not give rise to a trust of the benefit of that warranty in favour of the claimant. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. It was common ground that the confiscation order against the defendant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) had to be quashed, as the scheme established by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the CJA scheme) applied to the indictment period. The parties disputed whether the court had power to substitute a confiscation order under the CJA scheme. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that there had been no abuse of process by the prosecution making substitution inequitable. Accordingly, the court could make an order substituting the confiscation order under the 2002 Act, having received written and oral submissions on what the content of such an order should be.