Latest Cases

Feeds

R (on the application of Edwards and others) v Birmingham City Council

Housing – Homeless person. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review proceedings, claiming that the manner in which the defendant local housing authority had dealt with their applications for housing as a homeless person had been unlawful and had reflected systemic failings. The individual claims failed because there had been no breach of statutory duty or any breach was minor and did not warrant relief. Further, the possible breach of duty had not arguably supported a claim of systemic failure as was alleged in the general claim. 

Mortgage Express v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd

Misrepresentation – Damages. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's claim in deceit in part. It held that a former employee of the defendant, D, had made a number of deceitfully high rental valuations for properties in a development. A number of communications between the parties had, generally, not created a break in the chain of causation. The claims were made out in the case of three out of the four groups in the proceedings. 

Lord Advocate v Mirza

Extradition – Human rights. Sheriff Court: In a case in which the Government of the USA sought a Pakistani citizen's extradition for prosecution on nine serious fraud charges, an application which was opposed based on s 87 of the Extradition Act 2003 and alleged contraventions of art 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, art 3 (freedom from torture), art 5 (right to liberty) and art 6 (right to a fair trial), the court held that extradition would be compatible with the respondent's Convention rights, within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, and was satisfied that that the case could safely be sent to the Scottish Ministers for their final decision on whether the respondent was to be extradited. 

William Tracey Ltd v SP Transmission plc

Electricity transmission – Wayleaves – Temporary continuation of wayleaves. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuer sought damages for encroachment by reason of the presence of the defender's equipment on a site between 27 September 1997, when the pursuer entered into possession of the site, and 13 August 2014, when the Scottish Ministers granted a necessary wayleave in the defender's favour, the court held that when effect was given to what it considered to be the proper construction of para 8 of Sch 4 to the Electricity Act 1989, the pursuer's claim, relying as it did on the proposition that on a pre-existing wayleave ceasing to be binding on a change of ownership the presence of an electric line on land became an encroachment and as such actionable in damages, was irrelevant. 

Re Indah Kiat International Finance Company BV

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division adjourned a hearing to convene a single class of creditors to consider a scheme of arrangement in respect of the applicant company, Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. Among other things, it considered that 14 days was inadequate notice for a convening hearing for a scheme of the present type, which was neither simple nor straightforward. Even if the notice to the creditors had been adequate, an order convening a single meeting of scheme creditors would not have been made because the evidence adduced by the company as to the appropriate composition of the scheme meetings and draft explanatory statement were materially deficient in their current form. 

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and another

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed an application by Muktar Ablyazov's son-in-law (I) to set aside a claim form and worldwide freezing order which had been issued against him where the claimant Russian bank had established a good arguable case that I had committed the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and where, notwithstanding that he was domiciled in Switzerland, the English court had jurisdiction under art 5(3) of the Lugano Convention on the basis that the alleged conspiracy had been hatched in England in the period before 16 February 2012. 

Re S (Children)

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against two case management decisions made in preparation for a fact-finding hearing, namely, that certain witnesses would not give oral evidence at trial, and, save in one respect, dismissed his appeal against the findings of fact themselves. 

Attorney General's Reference (No 126/2015)

Criminal law – Wounding with intent. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held, that following a Goodyear indication, a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, had been unduly lenient. The offender's mitigation had not been sufficient to have justified a departure from the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines: Assault. Consequently, the sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of five years' imprisonment. 

*Attorney General's Reference (No 01/2016)

Criminal law – Indecency with child. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, for three specimen counts of indecency with a child, contrary to s 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, had been unduly lenient. A judge had to arrive at the right sentence on the offences before her and to guard against any temptation, because of what had happened in the intervening period, to suspend the sentence. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a total term of three years and six months' imprisonment. 

Re Ralls Builders Ltd (in liquidation);

Company – Administration-Director. The Chancery Division ruled on the joint liquidators' application for a declaration of wrongful trading that, although the directors of a company in administration ought to have concluded by a certain date that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation, continued trading had not caused loss to the company overall or worsen the position of the creditors as a whole. Accordingly, no declaration was made under s 214(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, requiring the directors to make any contribution to the assets of the company in respect of any losses said to have been caused to the company during the period of wrongful trading. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Investment in justice

The Bar Council will press for investment in justice at party conferences, the Chancellor’s Budget and Spending Review

Job of the Week

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases