Latest Cases

Bank – Regulation of financial services. HSBC, through the applicants, HSBC Bank plc and HSBC UK Bank plc, was the fourth of the five major UK banks to apply for the court's sanction of a ring-fencing scheme (the scheme) under Pt VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Chancery Division, in granting the application, ruled that the statutory pre-conditions for the sanction of the scheme had been, or would be, satisfied, and that it was appropriate for the court to sanction it. The court also approved certain ancillary orders which had been sought.

Landlord and tenant – Tenancy agreement. The appeal of the appellant charity and registered mutual society succeeded, in a dispute in which the appellant sought to carry out renovations at a property inhabited by the respondent tenant. The Chancery Division held that, on the correct interpretation of the tenancy agreement, the appellant had a right of access for the purpose of performing improvement works.

Company – Administration. The applicant joint administrators' application for a declaration that they had been validly appointed succeeded, in a case concerning the administration of a company formed to develop property in London. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, r 3.24 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, envisaged two separate stages in appointment, namely: (i) an act by the company or directors; and (ii) a filing of a notice, which was conceptually separate. The appointment only became effective when the administrators took office, which they could only do once the notice had been filed with the court.

Valuation – Hereditament. There was more than enough evidence to establish that the property was part of a highway and the appellant local authority was not in rateable occupation of the property. Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) allowed the authority's appeal against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England, dismissing its appeal against the valuation officer's decision to enter a property on the rating list.

European Union – Trade marks. The Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had been entitled to find that the word sign applied for, namely 'ST ANDREWS', could not be registered as an EU trade mark, being incompatible with the absolute ground of refusal set out in art 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009, as amended. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the appeal by St Andrews Links Ltd, established in the UK, against the Board's decision to refuse registration of that mark in relation to certain services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement (concerning the international Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks).

Divorce – Financial provision. Following divorce, the applicant wife was awarded 24.32% of the respondent husband's net assets of £38,274.048. The Family Division held that the award to be made had to be the greater of the sharing or needs-based valuation and thus the appropriate award for the wife was £9.31m pursuant to the sharing principle. When making its decision, the court considered the wife's contribution to the husband's business together with the standard of life that the parties had enjoyed, the parties' pre-marital relationship and children of the family.

European Union – Trade marks. The Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had been entitled to find that the word sign applied for, namely 'ST ANDREWS', could not be registered as an EU trade mark, being incompatible with the absolute ground of refusal set out in art 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009, as amended. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the appeal by St Andrews Links Ltd, established in the UK, against the Board's decision to refuse registration of that mark in relation to certain services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement (concerning the international Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks).

Limitation of action – Foreign limitation periods. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Iraqi claimants, who alleged that they had suffered unlawful detention and/or physical maltreatment at the hands of British armed forces in Iraq, against a decision by the Court of Appeal in which it had found in favour of the Ministry of Justice that an English court was bound to disregard any impediment arising from Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 17 because that order was not a law with respect to limitation which the English courts were bound to apply. The court ruled that the Court of Appeal had been right to say that CPA Order 17 had no legal effect in an English court. It ruled that, in the English proceedings, the relevant law was the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The CPA Order 17 had no relevance to English proceedings because it had no application outside Iraq and had never impeded resort to the English court. 

Employment – Contract of employment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that, in considering a claimant's employment status, the ultimate question had to be the nature of the relationship during the period that the work was being done. However, it did not follow that the absence of mutuality of obligation outside that period might not influence, or shed light on, the character of the relationship within it. Its relevance would depend on the particular facts of the case, but to exclude consideration of it in limine ran counter to the repeated message of the authorities that it was necessary to consider all the circumstances. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a claim for judicial review of the respondent local planning authority's decision to use its powers, under s 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to clear agricultural land located in the Green Belt of caravans occupied by the appellant and family members, which had been stationed there in breach of planning controls since 2009. Among other things, the appellant had failed to show that it had been irrational for the authority to have decided that enough was enough and that the time had arrived at which it would be reasonable and proportionate, in light of all relevant interests, to proceed to implement the enforcement notice, the validity of which had been upheld on appeal to the Secretary of State.