Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division, Bankruptcy Court, set aside a deputy registrar's decision: (i) dismissing a former bankrupt's application for the annulment of his bankruptcy; and (ii) granting the trustee in bankruptcy's application that he and his predecessor be remunerated by reference to the time properly given by them and their staff in attending to matters arising in the bankruptcy where the deputy registrar had failed to apply settled law and the relevant Practice Direction in considering those applications. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The conduct and competence committee of the defendant Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) found the appellant nurses guilty of misconduct and struck them off the register of nurses. At the hearing, the committee admitted anonymous hearsay evidence adduced by the NMC. The Administrative Court held that, although the anonymous evidence should not have been admitted, the committee's reasoning and conclusions on the critical aspects of its findings were unassailable. Accordingly, it dismissed the appellants appeals against the committee's findings, save that the findings which had depended in part on the anonymous evidence would be quashed. 

Landlord and tenant – Fixtures. The claimant landlord issued proceedings against the defendant tenant, contending that it did not have the right to deal with tenant's fixtures during the currency of the lease term. The judge held that the tenant had had such right and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that there was no rule of law that especially clear words had to be used in a lease in order for a tenant's right to remove fixtures at any point during the term to be validly ousted. Accordingly, on the proper construction of the lease, the tenant was precluded from removing any tenant's fixtures, save as permitted by the proviso in the lease. 

Practice – Order. The Commercial Court granted the defendants relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 where the non-compliance had been trivial and the deadline had just been missed for reasons which were explicable, if not excusable. Having regard to all the circumstances, it was the type of case in which relief should be granted. 

Easement – Right of way. The defendants were successors in title to a plot of land sold by the claimants. The original transfer included an express right of way over land forming part of the claimants' property. When the defendant encroached on the land in order to connect utilities for a modern dwelling house, the claimants sought an injunction and damages. The trial judge dismissed their claim on the basis that there had been an inferred intention that the building plot should have connections to the utilities and that rights of access that had already been granted that could be used for the purposes of putting in those connections. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that applying established law, the express provisions of the original transfer had not excluded the implied easement which the trial judge had held to exist. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employees were dismisses following a transfer of undertakings under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). They brought successful claims before an employment tribunal and before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The employer appealed on the basis that the decision to dismiss was an economic technical or organisational reason. The Court of Appeal Civil Division held that it was not an economic, technical or organisational decision within reg 7 of TUPE decision and the dismissal had been automatically unfair. 

Company – Winding-up. The Companies Court granted a petition to wind up a family-run company where there had been a complete breakdown in the mutual trust and confidence between the family members, impeding the proper management of the company, and where it was just and equitable to wind up the company. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought proceedings in England and India seeking payment from the defendant under bonds. The claimant applied for summary judgment and the defendant applied for the claimant to elect where it was to bring proceedings. The Commercial Court granted the claimant summary judgment and dismissed the defendant's application basing its decision on the facts of the case. 

Costs – Assessment. The claimant brought three actions which were consolidated in a consent order which stated that all three cases were to be tried and managed together. The claimant served a joint costs budget and the defendant objected on the basis it was contended that the consent order required that separate costs budgets were required. The Queen's Bench Division gave consideration to CPR 3.14 and rejected the defendants arguments. 

Costs – Security for costs. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding the difficulties that the claimants were experiencing in complying with a previous order for security for costs, their assets had to be realised in the face of that order. In those circumstances, an unless order was made, providing that, if the claimants failed to comply by 31 January 2014, their claim would be struck out.