Latest Cases

Sale of land – Failure to complete purchase. The claimant sellers had been entitled to rescind a contract for the sale of a property for failure, by the defendant buyer, to complete, in circumstances where, at the date of the exchange of contracts, the defendant had not had a firm offer of finance for the property and a previous (provisional) finance offer had, subsequently, been reduced, resulting in a shortfall, and where the defendant had unsuccessfully sought an extension of the completion date to 30 September 2015. The defendant had argued that the claimants had not been entitled to rescind the contract, because they had not been ready, willing and able to complete when they had served the notice to complete, since, at that time, they had not been in a position to assign the copyright in the plans and reports connected to the property, as required by cl 18.1 of the contract. The Chancery Division held, in favour of the claimants, that the defendant had waived its rights to insist on assignments of the relevant rights under cl 18.1, rather than the licences offered by the claimants, and that the claimants had been ready, willing and able to comply with cl 18.1 at the time when notice to complete had been served. The court further held that the defendant had not been hindered from completing by any breach of contract by the claimants in relation to access to the property in question. The defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract was dismissed.

Police – Disclosure of information. The regime for the collection and retention of data concerning reports of matters which might amount to the commission of a crime by a minor did not breach art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the basis that it was not in accordance with the law. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Chief Constable's refusal to delete crime records as a result of the claimant's alleged involvement in three sexting incidents when he was 14 or 15, further dismissed the submission that the recording and maintenance of the two crime reports had been disproportionate.

Contract – Enforceability. The relevant provisions of the parties' agreement amounted to an agreement to agree and were, consequently, unenforceable. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, further held that the judge had been correct in his conclusion that the claimant did not have an enforceable right to provide the consultancy services during any further period to be reasonably agreed between the claimant and the defendant.

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The applicant was successful in its application for the authorisation of medical treatment for the first respondent. The first respondent was suffering from sepsis, secondary to a large necrotic infected Grade 4 sacral pressure sore that was unable to heal due to constant contamination by faeces which in turn was caused by incontinence. The Court of Protection permitted the insertion of a colostomy bag to prevent further infection, as any risks associated with the procedure were outweighed by the risk of death in the absence of treatment.

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The traffic authority's duty of securing the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, as set out in s 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, was not given primacy but was a qualified duty which had to be read with the factors in s 122(2) of that Act. Having considered all the relevant factors, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant organisation's application to quash, wholly or in part, the defendant local authority's traffic regulation order on the basis that none of the grounds relied on by the claimant were made out.

Negligence – Duty to take care. The defendant employer had breached its duty of care by failing sufficiently to risk assess the task of cleaning and tipping a tipper truck trailer, and also by failing to implement and enforce safe systems of work in respect of those tasks. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's claim arising from his injury when cleaning out the trailer within the vicinity of high voltage overhead power lines, but reduced damages by 25% to take account of the claimant's contributory negligence.

Execution – Stay. The appellant company's appeal against a stay of execution failed. The stay had been imposed along with judgment in favour of the appellant, in an action to enforce the decision of an adjudicator in a construction dispute. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been entitled to come to the view that he had done and, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a stay of execution.

Rates – Non-domestic rates. There was no evidential basis for the judge's factual finding that the appellant's charitable objects had been changed after and in response to a letter, but there was for her conclusion that adverts had appeared in the local press on six occasions and she had given sufficient reasons for rejecting the claimant's evidence. The Administrative Court further held that, in determining that properties had not been used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes with respect to non-domestic rates, the judge had not erred in law.

Extradition – Appeal. The errors in the judgment on the claimant's extradition to Bulgaria had the cumulative effect that the reasons simply could not be considered as addressing the true and actual facts of the case at all, and the decision was tantamount to a nullity. As the Administrative Court could only allow the appeal if the case could only have been properly decided against extradition, it granted the claimant's application for judicial review, while stressing that the judgment and decision were no warrant or precedent for the incursion of judicial review into the field of extradition.

Judge – Appeal. A judge who had presided at an aborted trial ought to have recused himself from sitting on an appeal against conviction, following their conviction on the same charges at a further trial. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellants' appeals, held that the judge's decisions would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there had been a real possibility that he had pre-judged issues which fell for consideration on the appeal and that the appellants had not had the appearance of a fresh tribunal of three judges to consider their appeals.