Latest Cases

Company – Director. The claimant Secretary of State issued proceedings, relying on certain transactions as demonstrating that the defendant's conduct as a director of a company made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, within s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Chancery Division held that, due to the defendant's untrue representations, he was unfit to be concerned in the management of a company and would be disqualified for a period of seven years. 

Damages – Assessment. The defendant was the sole proprietor of a silver business at the London Silver Vaults. The claimant purchased, through the defendant, a large quantity of silver for investment. The claimant demanded delivery of the silver by a certain date, but only some of the silver was delivered. The claimant brought an action, seeking damages for conversion. Judgment was entered in default of acknowledgement of service. The Commercial Court held that the claimant was entitled to recover damages of £406,760.33, based on the fall in value of the silver eventually delivered to it. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal rejecting his claims for discrimination on grounds of age and constructive dismissal. Although the EAT considered that the words used by the employer had been discriminatory, it decided that those words had not been material part of conduct which had amounted to the breach in response to which the employee had resigned. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The European Court of Justice Union ruled that art 41(1) of the Additional Protocol concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 and annexed to the Association Agreement had to be interpreted as meaning that the 'standstill' clause set out in that provision precluded a measure of national law, introduced after the entry into force of that additional protocol in the member state concerned, which imposed on spouses of Turkish nationals residing in that member state, who wished to enter the territory of that state for the purposes of family reunification, the condition that they demonstrate beforehand that they had acquired basic knowledge of the official language of that member state. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant finance company had purchased the debts of a company, which went into administration and subsequently into liquidation. The claimant brought proceedings, seeking to recover a sum from the defendant directors of the company, under deeds of indemnity. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that, on the true construction of the deeds of indemnity, the defendants' liability in each case was primary, not secondary and they had no real prospect of success in any of their defences. 

Agriculture – Agricultural land. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the definition of 'permanent pasture' set out in art 2(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) 1120/2009 had to be interpreted as covering agricultural land which was currently, and had been for five years or more, used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage, even though that land had been ploughed up and seeded with another variety of herbaceous forage other than that which had previously been grown on it during that period. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appeal concerned the amended Immigration Rules that required a UK spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the United Kingdom to join them. The Administrative Court had held that there was substantial merit in the contention that the amendments amounted to a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not grant declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his analysis and had reached the wrong conclusion on compatibility. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claims that the employer was liable for disability discrimination by proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and an internal appeal, but found that all other complaints of disability discrimination were not well-founded. The employee's request for a review was refused. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the refusal of a review, held that the tribunal judge had not committed any error of law in approaching the review. 

Insurance – Repudiation of claim. The appellant company issued proceedings, seeking payment under its insurance policy with the respondent company. The judge found that the appellant had not made a fraudulent claim, but the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago overturned that decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the Court of Appeal had had no proper basis for concluding that the trial judge had gone plainly wrong in his assessment of the evidence. Accordingly, it had erred in substituting its views on the critical question. 

Immigration – Asylum. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which the petitioner, who accepted that he had not stated additional grounds until served with a refusal of his wife's claim, sought reduction of a decision to certify his asylum claim so as to deny a right of appeal, the court held that at the earliest possible stage the petitioner knew he had to disclose the whole truth and plainly did not do so; the respondent had correctly exercised her discretion and had given reasons for her decision, having fully explored all the proper issues; she was not bound to take account of Country of Origin information and did not err in the way the wife's case was considered.