Latest Cases

Practice – Order. The Chancery Division allowed an appeal by the appellant trustees in bankruptcy against an order (the Hay order) setting aside an earlier order (the Paul order) in proceedings where the trustees sought, among other things, a declaration regarding the ownership of a property. The court held that, considering the appeal in the light of the overriding objective, the matter ought to have been brought to an end once and for all by the Paul order. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court held, among other things, that, on the evidence, the claimant had been an investor, within the meaning of a bilateral agreement between Venezuela and Canada and therefore entitled to arbitrate a claim against Venezuela concerning mining concessions and mining rights. Consequently, Venezuela had lost its right to rely on state immunity in proceedings brought by the claimant to enforce an award of the arbitral tribunal in Paris. Further, s 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not require the service of the arbitration claim form on Venezuela in the manner contended. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of approximately nine months for offences of robbery, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. As the appellant had served the remainder of his sentence on remand, it would be disproportionate to his rights under art 8 of the Convention to order his extradition. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. The Commercial Court granted declarations in favour of the claimant insured, ruling, among other things, that a claim for indemnity insurance had been first made within the relevant policy period. If it had not, but, rather, had been made by letter dated 2 April 2013, it was covered by the second excess policy by virtue of an extension clause and the defendant insurers were not entitled to decline cover by virtue of a clause in the primary policy. 

Prison – Discipline. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant serving young offender's challenge to the defendant Independent Adjudicator's ruling that the defence of duress was not available to his disciplinary proceedings for the unauthorised possession of alcohol. The principles underlying the general distinction between criminal and disciplinary offences told strongly in favour of treating the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, SI 2000/3371, and the Prison Rules 1999, SI 1999/278, as separate non-criminal disciplinary codes for the purpose of the application of the common law defence of duress. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused an application made by the paternal uncle of two young children for leave to revoke placement orders. The court held that there probably had been a change of circumstances, but, in considering the second stage, namely, whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised, in all the circumstances, the application would be refused. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division substantially refused the defendant's application for leave to appeal against his two convictions for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. However, the court had been unable to determine whether leave should be granted on one ground of appeal, thus, that ground would be adjourned with directions, for a further hearing. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Divisional Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Crown Court's ruling that no member of the public could make notes of the proceedings without permission. The default position was that those who attended public court hearings should be free to make notes of what occurred and the paramount question for a judge, if considering withdrawing that liberty, was whether the note-taking in question would be likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice. 

Building contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court made three preliminary rulings concerning limitation in a case involving defects in the construction of residential properties. It ruled on the time when the cause of action had accrued and held that, on the true construction of clause 2.5.5 of the relevant building contract, there was one single cause of action. The clause did not operate to preclude claims for defects, whether in contract or in tort, from being brought against the defendant after expiry of the relevant warranty period. 

Solicitor – Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a finding that two solicitors had been guilty of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust in a mortgage fraud. The honesty of those solicitors was to have been assessed as against what they had believed the facts to have been, and the judge had not made findings on all of that knowledge or belief. Further, he had failed to deal with what was, potentially, a good defence.