Latest Cases

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. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The local authority became concerned about an elderly lady G an applied to the court in respect of her mental capacity under the Mental Health Act 2005, the Court of Protection held that G lacked capacity under the provisions of the 2005 Act and that further investigation needed to be carried out to decide how her best interests would be met and her comfort and safety assured. 

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. 

Electricity – Wayleave. The respondent had entered into a contract to sell land for development which was conditional on the removal of an overhead power line. The appellant electricity company obtained a statutory wayleave in respect of the power line and the conditional contract fell away. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) assessed the compensation payable to the respondent under para 7 of Sch 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 on the basis of the value of the land under the contract minus the nominal value of the land as at the date of the wayleave. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the tribunal had been correct in the basis upon which it had assessed compensation. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants in two separate cases were mandate refugees who had been refused resettlement in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State as they had not met the criteria in her relevant policy. In the first case, the claimants' application for judicial review of the decision was refused, in the second case such an application was allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the categories of 'close family' in the policy applied to the person seeking resettlement and not to the family member already living in the UK. Further, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged by the policy and, if it was, then any interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim of immigration control. The respective appeals were dismissed. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant bank contended that the defendant was liable for repayment of a loan paid to a United States law firm of which he was a partner and sought summary judgment. The defendant contended that the loan was to the firm and, alternatively, he was a guarantor. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant might establish that his obligations were those he had identified when seen against the background of the particular circumstances in which the contractual documents had been signed and the factual matrix as to the true purpose of the transaction. 

Nursing – Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant nurse's appeal against her erasure from the register. The respondent Nursing Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise panel had not introduced a further charge of which the appellant had not had notice. Further, it had not failed to give adequate weight or credit to admissions made by the appellant and had not failed to take into account the mitigating features of the case. Nor had the panel been wrong to characterise the appellant as evasive. Finally, in the circumstances, the panel's decision to strike the appellant off the register had not been excessive or disproportionate. 

Financial Services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In the course of proceedings brought against the defendants by the Financial Conduct Authority, a preliminary issue arose for determination. The defendants submitted that the schemes in issue were not collective investment schemes, as they had neither of the characteristics required by s 235(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, namely, pooling of profit or management as a whole. The Chancery Division held that all of the investment schemes under consideration were collective investment schemes within the meaning of s 235 of the Act. 

Negligence – Flood. The claimant was the freehold owner of an apartment block. In September 2005, water pipes at the apartment block burst, causing damage. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant company, which had designed the cold water system. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the action, holding that, although failure in the pipes would probably have been prevented if anti-surge valves had been fitted, there was no evidence that the claimant would have fitted such valves if it had been advised to do so. 

Police – Constable. The claimant police officer shot a person in the course of his duty. The defendant chairman of the public inquiry into the shooting found that the claimant could not have reasonably believed that the victim had posed an immediate threat. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review of the findings of the defendant, but gave some guidance as to the correct approach in such inquiries.