Latest Cases

Conflict of interest – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division held that it had no jurisdiction in respect of claims for declarations of entitlement to shares in companies registered in the name of the deceased, which had been 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant's appeal concerning an arbitration which arose out of a contract of affreightment (COA) made between the claimant, as owners and the defendant, as charterers of bulk carriers. The tribunal had erred in law by failing to hold that by being deprived, by the defendant's breach, of its right to receive freight, the claimant had suffered a loss, notwithstanding that the claimant had used two other companies to receive all inward freight earned under the COA and to pay all outgoing freight. The tribunal had not taken into account that, whilst one limb of the right to receive freight had been the right to receive it into one's bank account, another limb of that right had been the right to give it away. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by insurers against an order that they pay the claimants' costs of the proceedings, which had been made on the basis of, among other things, the exercise of the court's discretion to order costs to be paid by a non-party, pursuant to s 51(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The insurers were unable to demonstrate that the judge's exercise of his discretion had been flawed in any way. On the contrary, there had been ample material to have justified the order which he had made. 

Immigration – Circumvention of immigration control. The county court allowed Ryanair's appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's imposition of a charge notice of £4,000 in respect of two passengers without proper documents. It criticised the absence of a proper definition of whether the falsity of a document was reasonably apparent and held that the evidence fell well short of establishing that a trained representative with a basic knowledge of identification of false documents should have been expected to pick up the relevant irregularities. 

Criminal evidence – Sufficiency of evidence – Unreasonable verdict – Misdirection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted art and part of culpable homicide, along with a co-accused who was convicted of murder, the court rejected grounds of appeal contending (i) that the trial judge had erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient, alleged admissions by the appellant in text messages having been demonstrably wrong and there being no evidence which could corroborate them, (ii) that even if there had been a sufficiency of evidence the verdict was one which no reasonable jury could have reached, and (iii) that the judge erred in his directions to the jury about what was capable of amounting to corroboration of the texts. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The Administrative Court granted the claimant declaratory relief on the basis that he had no means of seeking to persuade a public authority that disclosure of two reprimands for offences of sexual activity with a child, issued when he had been aged 13, had not been relevant or necessary. Accordingly, there were insufficient safeguards and the interference with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been in accordance with the law. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that in considering allowing the claimants' application for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16/s 33 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in relation to a causes of action in defamation and harassment that the claimants had made out a clear and strong case for the exercise of the court's discretion to order pre-action disclosure in their favour. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to the Slovak Republic to face charges for fraud and forgery. In the circumstances of the case, the passage of 16 years and the events which had occurred within that period meant that it would be unjust to direct the appellant's extradition. 

Adoption – Arrangements. The Family Court made care and placement orders in respect of two children despite their parents being in Slovakia and not giving consent. In so deciding, the court took into account the likely effect on the children (throughout their lives) of ceasing to be members of their birth family and found that any disadvantages were outweighed by the emotional security they would acquire as adopted persons. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's clinical negligence case against the defendant doctors on the basis that there was a credible explanation for why no sufficient warning bells had rung for any doctor who had seen the claimant in order to diagnose signs of a subarachnoid haemorrhage, from which she had later suffered.