Latest Cases

Contract law – Terms – Restraint of trade. Sheriff Appeal Court: Refusing an appeal in an action in which the pursuers and appellants demanded payment of a sum due under a share purchase agreement and the respondent averred that payment was no longer due because the appellants were in breach of contract, the court held that the clause of the contract on which the respondent relied could not be characterised as a contractual term which was in restraint of trade: there was no loss of liberty by the appellants; instead, they had agreed to secure, if they could, the co-operation of third parties and that did not engage the concept of the rule of restraint of trade as developed in the authorities.

Inheritance tax – Lifetime transfer. The covenants in a reversionary sub-lease to observe and perform the provisions of the head lease had amounted to a benefit by contract to the appellant tax payer within the meaning of FA 1986 s 102(1)(b). Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the tax payer's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), which had held that a reversionary sub-lease granted on favourable terms by the deceased to her three sons was subject to inheritance tax.

Restrictive covenant affecting land – Benefit of covenant. On a correct assessment of the circumstances of the case, no discretion had arisen under s 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 according to which there was any basis for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (the UT) to modify restrictive covenants so as to permit residential development. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Trust's appeal against the UT's decision to allow the respondent developer's application to modify the restrictive covenants.

Local authority – Child. The defendant had not breached the third claimant child's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of him being housed in unsuitable accommodation until alternative accommodation had been offered. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review.

Contract – Formation of contract. The claimant company's claim failed, in a dispute concerning the claimant's attempt to purchase shares in a hospitality business launched by V, in which the defendants had invested. The Commercial Court held that the powers of attorney under which V had attended a meeting with the claimant had not been sufficiently broad to encompass entry into the deed and/or the contract as alleged.

European Union – State aid. The assessment of the compatibility of the aid scheme for the capacity market in the UK (the measure at issue) had given rise to doubts within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which should have led the European Commission to initiate the procedure referred to in art 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union granted the application by Tempus Energy Ltd (established in the UK) and another company for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the measure at issue.

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The defendant's application for an order stating that the English court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claimant company's claim was dismissed, in a dispute concerning the defendant's liabilities in the insurance of a ship. The Commercial Court held that the application had not been made in time and refused relief against sanction.

Counsel – Disciplinary proceedings. The five-person tribunal which had determined disciplinary proceedings concerning the appellant unregistered barrister had had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as the provisions for the constitution of a panel in reg rE60 of the Complaints Regulations were clearly procedural requirements that did not, if breached, mean that a panel had no jurisdiction. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, further held that fact that the appellant's case had been dealt with by a panel of five, rather than three, had not been unfair to her and unjust.

Natural justice – Legitimate expectation. The court should not, as a matter of public law, lend itself to deployment or enforcement of statements made on a 'what is said in this room stays in this room' basis, such as comments by the then Prime Minister with respect to the announced, but terminated, part 2 of the Leveson inquiry relating to the press. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimants' application for judicial review of the termination decision, further rejected their contention that their legitimate expectation that there would be a part 2 of the inquiry had been breached.

Negligence – Medical negligence. In allowing the appellant doctor's appeal against the award of damages for his admitted negligence, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge was required to apply the 'scope of duty test' as set out in South Australian Asset Management Corportation v York Montague Ltd (SAAMCO). The SAAMCO test required there to be an adequate link between the breach of duty and the particular type of loss claimed and accordingly the appellant although liable for the costs associated with the respondent's sons haemophilia, was not liable for the cost's associated with his autism.