Latest Cases

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant in England, claiming a sum said to be due in respect of the supply of bunkers for vessels. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, contending that prior proceedings in Cyprus, concerning a guarantee between the parties, would determine the issues before the English court. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the defendant's challenge to jurisdiction, held that the English the Cypriot proceedings had neither the same cause, nor the same object. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Supreme Court ruled on matters arising from proceedings concerning the right of Marks and Spencer plc (M&S) to claim group relief in respect of losses sustained by two of their subsidiaries resident in Germany and Belgium respectively. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge requested a district court in the Czech Republic to assume jurisdiction in relation to care proceedings concerning a 19-month-old boy in accordance with art 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. The local authority and the children's guardian appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, having regard to its conclusions about the benefits of judicial continuity and the judge's erroneous formulation of legal policy, the preliminary issue as to art 15 of the Regulation should have been decided in favour of the English court retaining jurisdiction. 

Easement – Right of way. The claimant local authority sought an injunction, requiring the defendant to re-open a passageway the subject of its right of way. The judge granted the injunction, having found that two distinct groups benefited from the right of way and that one group had abandoned its right to the passageway. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had erred in concluding that there had been a partial abandonment of a right of way by reference to different classes of potential users. Further, mere non-use had been incapable of supporting a conclusion that the right of way had been abandoned for all time. 

Police – Powers. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's judicial review challenge to his detention pursuant to para 2(1) of Sch 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The purpose of the claimant's detention had fallen within Sch 7 to the Act and the decision to exercise that power had been a proportionate measure in the circumstances. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A planning inspector granted the appellant company planning permission for a four-turbine wind farm. The judge quashed that decision and the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct in her conclusion that Parliament's intention in enacting s 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 had been that decision-makers should give 'considerable importance and weight' to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the required balancing exercise and that the inspector had not done so. 

Insurance – Claim. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant insurance company when it refused to pay on an insurance policy, following a burglary at a property that he owned. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the property had not been occupied at the time of the burglary, and that the claim had been fraudulent. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Edgeskill Ltd (Edgeskill) against a decision of the First-tier tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had upheld the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse Edgeskill recovery of input VAT relating to several transactions for the purchase and export by Edgeskill of mobile telephones. The tribunal decided that, on the evidence, the FTT had correctly concluded that Edgeskill had had actual knowledge that the transactions in question had all been connected with fraudulent tax evasion. 

Vicarious liability – Crown. The claimant prison catering manager was injured by the negligence of a prisoner. She issued proceedings against the defendant Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for damages for personal injury. The judge dismissed her claims and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the MoJ was vicariously liable for the injury caused to the claimant, as the differences from the normal employment relationship between the prisoner and the MoJ rendered the relationship between them, if anything, closer than that of an employer and its employees. 

Nuisance – Statutory nuisance. The instant proceedings arose out of the service of an abatement notice (the notice) by the interested party local authority on the claimant Royal British Legion Club. The claimant appealed against the notice and the matter was dealt with at a trial before the defendant Magistrates' Court in front of a district judge. The judge found that the notice had been justified and reasonable and the claimant had not used the best practical means to counteract the nuisance (the first disputed decision). However, he ordered that each side should pay its own costs (the second disputed decision). Dismissing the claimant's claim for judicial review of the first and second disputed decisions, the Administrative Court held that: (i) the instant case had been an exceptional case where, despite the fact that the claimant had been the winning party, it should be able to bring judicial review proceedings; however, (ii) the district judge's findings had not been irrational, perverse or unreasonable.