Latest Cases

Shipping – Arbitration award. The claimant companies' application to set aside a judge's order, dismissing their challenge to an arbitration award on the ground of serious irregularity under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, was dismissed. The arbitration arose out of the loss of cargo that had been carried on the claimants' barge. The defendant underwriters had applied to London arbitrators for a declaration that any claim by the claimants against the underwriters for an indemnity, concerning a settlement the claimants had reached with the owners of the cargo, was time-barred. The arbitrators had agreed and had further held that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay by the claimants, under s 41(3) of the Act. In so ruling, the arbitrators had considered it appropriate to treat the claimants as a 'claimant or counter-claimant', within the meaning of s 41(3), notwithstanding that the underwriters had made the application for a declaration. The Commercial Court ruled that, applying the law to the facts, the claimants' s 68 application was hopeless, and that requiring the underwriters to defend the claim when there was a substantial risk that a fair resolution was no longer possible, as a result of the claimants' own conduct, would be a plain injustice to the underwriters.

Immigration – Appeal. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) had no jurisdiction to determine the claimants' applications to set aside earlier appeal decisions made by it, whether made by way of application or of its own initiative. The Divisional Court further held that the FTT's power to act of its own initiative, under s 9(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, had been successfully reduced by rules which had been properly made pursuant to the power conferred by s 9(3)(d) and, in so far as necessary, by s 9(3)(a).

Child – Care. The judge had erred in granting care and placement orders in relation to R, a 15-month-old child, on the basis that it had not been shown that the evidence in the case met the exacting standard necessary for orders leading to adoption. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the mother's appeal, set aside the care and placement orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration by a different judge.

Criminal law – Appeal. It could not be said, by reference to the charges on the indictment for rape, that the jury had to have been satisfied of the facts necessary to support a conviction for buggery and s 7(2)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 precluded the court from ordering a retrial in the case. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the defendant's conviction and sentence for two rape offences, but the remaining sentence of 18 years' imprisonment for nine counts of indecent assault on males, including children, was not disturbed.

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The claimant trade union's claim, under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as regards the proposed redundancies of any of the defendant's employees assigned to any ships stationed outside Great Britain, had to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant employer's appeal against the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that upheld, among other things, the employment tribunal's decision that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Extradition – Forum bar provisions – Non-commencement in Scotland – Judicial review. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings in which the complaint was that the United Kingdom government had failed to commence in Scotland the extradition forum bar provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which had been in force in the rest of the UK since October 2013, the court held that Parliament intended that the forum bar provisions would be brought into law throughout the UK, and that there was no power to do so in different parts at different times, and it pronounced decree of declarator that in its continuing failure to bring into force in Scotland the extradition forum bar provisions in s 50 of, and Sch 20 to, the 2013 Act, the UK government was acting unlawfully and contrary to its duties under s 61 of the Act

Commercial contract – Breach of contract – Construction – Express term – Implied term. Court of Session: In an action in which a company and its joint liquidators sought damages from another company for breach of contract and the defender challenged the relevancy of the pursuers' averments, the court held that the contract did not contain an express term obliging the defender to place orders for at least approximately 50% of the minimum tonnage during the first half of each year, nor was it necessary or otherwise appropriate that such a term should be implied, however the pursuers' secondary case offering to prove that the defender did not purchase the minimum tonnage during year two of the contract was suitable for inquiry.

European Union – Approximation of national laws. Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as precluding national courts from reviewing the legality of decisions to initiate procedures, preparatory acts or non-binding proposals adopted by competent national authorities in the procedure provided for in arts 22 and 23 of Directive (EU) 2013/36 (amending Directive (EC) 2002/87 and repealing Directives (EC) 2006/48 and 2006/49), in arts 4(1)(c) and 15 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 and in arts 85 to 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings between the applicants and the Bank of Italy and the Institute for the Supervision of Insurance, Italy, relating to scrutiny of the acquisition of a qualifying holding in a credit institution.

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. The two notices served by the claimant company on the first defendant company, pursuant to s 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, on which the claimant had based its entitlement to acquire the freehold of a building, were not valid. Consequently, the Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's claim.

Immigration – Asylum. The appellant Secretary of State appealed from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) (UT) that had concluded that the deportation of the respondent (AM) to Iran would place him at risk of ill-treatment in contravention of his rights under art 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed AM's appeal and remitted the case to the UT observing that to postulate the position that all returning Christian converts to Iran were at risk of harm under art 3 of the ECHR overstated the position.