Latest Cases

Tribunal – Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the application by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) for an extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal. The tribunal decided that the two requirements specifically mentioned in the new CPR 3.9, namely the need for appeals to be conducted efficiently and the need to enforce compliance with the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698, led ineluctably to the conclusion that the Revenue's application to submit a notice of appeal after the time limit had expired should be refused. 

Practice – Order. The Commercial Court granted relief from sanctions in respect of one of two actions, which had been tried together, where the default complained of (failure to comply with disclosure) had occurred in respect of the latter action only and where it was appropriate to grant relief. The court refused to grant relief from sanctions in the second action where, on the facts, there were no compelling circumstances which justified the grant of relief. 

European Union – State aids. The claimant local authorities sought judicial review of decisions of the defendant Secretary of State in relation to the allocation of European Union structural funds for the period 2014 to 2020. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the allocation had been rational, proportionate and permissible. However, the Secretary of State had breached the public sector equality duty, as the allocation had not been preliminary or provisional. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had sexually assaulted, murdered and then attempted to destroy the victim's body by setting it alight. He was charged with murder and convicted after a contested trial. The judge had sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a minimum term of 35 years' imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, stating generally that the sentence had been manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, on dismissing the appeal held that in all the circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed had not been a day too long. 

Local authority – Residential care home. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to uphold its reversal of a previous decision to disregard a property (the property) owned by the claimant's mother, MW, in calculating MW's ability to pay care home charges pursuant to s 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2977. For the purposes of para 2(1)(b) of sch 4 to the Regulations, 'home' was to be construed as 'only or main home.' In the instant case, the authority had not adopted the correct legal test as it appeared to have applied a test of actual occupation and/or permanent residence. Further, the authority had erred in interpreting the Regulations as requiring it only to review the position that pertained at the time that MW went into long term care, and in failing to consider whether the claimant had occupied the property as her home since that point. Finally, the authority had failed to take into account relevant considerations. 

Evidence – Admissibility. In the course of proceedings, the claimant company applied to the court, seeking an order that issues arising from an arbitration between the defendant company and a third party supplier be treated as settled in the instant proceedings. The Commercial Court held that to allow the application would lead to a result by which a man facing serious charges of fraud would not be able to defend himself again, and would suffer a greater unfairness than the claimant. That was sufficient to decide the application against the claimant. 

Set-off – Cross-claim. The judge entered judgment for the defendant and ordered the claimant to pay its costs, in part on an indemnity basis. The claimant appealed against the costs order and the defendant appealed against the rejection of part of its counterclaim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had correctly rejected the defendant's counterclaim, as it had failed to plead, adduce evidence in support of and prove its set off and counterclaim. Further, the judge had been plainly wrong to make the costs order which he had and his order was unsustainable. 

Contract – Breach. The parties intended to work together to drill wells in an area near Cameroon. A dispute arose as to the progression of the contract, and it became apparent that the defendant company had been voicing its concerns to the Cameroon authorities in breach of an agreement. The claimant company applied for an order preventing the defendant from communicating with certain authorities. The Commercial Court granted the application, subject to permitting the defendant company to appear and participate at meetings relevant to the project. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. On the local authority's application, a care order was made in respect of a five year old boy. The application for a placement order was refused. On appeal, the Family Division made a placement order, finding that the district judge had made a number of errors. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in making the placement order as he had not had all of the material before him that the district judge had had and the transcript of the oral evidence before the district judge had borne out his findings. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant and first defendant's lease fell due for rent review, which was conducted by arbitration. In his award, the arbitrator said he had not attributed any weight to a market comparable that post-dated the rent review date 'having regard to the established case law'. The claimant invited the arbitrator to agree a remission of the award, which the arbitrator refused. He stated that he stood by his award. In dismissing the claimant's application under the Arbitration Act 1996, the Chancery Division held that there had not been serious irregularities or errors of law under ss 68 or 69 of the Act.