Latest Cases

Shipping – Charterparty. A dispute arose about the alleged extending of a charterparty of a vessel. Considering anticipatory breach to have occurred, the owners sought to accept the breach and sold the vessel. By the time of the hearing, it was apparent that there was a significant difference in the value of the vessel when the owners sold it and November 2009, when the vessel would have been redelivered to owners had the charterers not been in breach of the charterparty. The Commercial Court held that the owners had not been required to give any credit for any benefit in realising the capital value of the vessel in October 2007, when the owners had arranged to sell it. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Laboratoires Polive for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausoni, SLU, and Laboratoires Polive concerning the application by Laboratoires Polive for registration of the word sign 'DODIE' as a Community trade mark. 

Armed forces – Service complaints. The first defendant Army Board of the Defence Council (the panel) rejected the claimant's service complaint, contending that his career had been mismanaged. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the panel had been entitled to take the view that an oral hearing had not been necessary to fairly decide the matter. Further, the 34-month delay in the determination of the complaint had not been unlawful under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or at common law. 

Divorce – Arrangements for care and upbringing of children. Following the breakdown of their marriage and subsequent divorce, the parties participated in a financial dispute resolution on 7 November 2013. The parties were able to agree final capital apportionment between them, including the making of a pension sharing order. Two areas upon which they could not agree were whether or not there should be some 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife; and whether or not those periodical payments payable to the wife should be the subject of some ultimate term or cut off. Giving consideration to s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Family Division stated that it would be totally speculative to consider a 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife or to say that they would be subject to a cut off. 

Arbitration – Award. Following a dispute between the parties, the claimant company, Diag, succeeded against the defendant Czech Republic in an arbitration. It sought to enforce the arbitration award in a number of countries, including Austria. The Supreme Court of Austria held that the award had not yet become binding on the parties. Diag, sought to enforce the award in the English court. The court held that the Supreme Court of Austria's decision gave rise to an issue estoppel that would prevent Diag from enforcing the judgment in the English court. 

Mortgage – Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss 26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s 31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s 26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged. 

Company – Receiver. In earlier London arbitration proceedings, the claimant had been awarded around US$300m against the defendant foreign companies. The Commercial Court granted the claimant's application to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution over certain assets of the defendants where, on the facts, it was just and convenient to do so, in the exercise of the court's discretion. 

Costs – Claim. The claimant chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forums sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to bring into force ss 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to mesothelioma claims. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not conducted a proper review of the likely effect of the Act reforms on mesothelioma claims, as required by s 48(1) of the Act. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In earlier proceedings, the claimant Russian shipping companies had alleged that the various defendants had been dishonestly involved in schemes to enrich a Russian businessman. The claimants had obtained freezing orders against the defendants and gave undertakings (the undertakings) to compensate the defendants in the event that the court found them to have suffered loss consequent upon the orders. Some, but not all of the claims had succeeded. Some of the defendants to the orders (the applicants in the present proceedings) alleged that they suffered loss consequent upon those orders and that the orders had been improperly made due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of disclosure and had caused them loss. They applied for directions for an assessment of compensation for loss suffered to be paid, under the undertakings. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the impropriety of the claimants who had obtained the freezing orders had been such that it would be wrong not to enforce the undertakings. The defendants had adduced sufficient evidence that the orders had caused them loss to justify an inquiry as to damages. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The judge granted the claimant permission to bring committal proceedings against the defendants for contempt allegations, concerning false statements. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to conclude that there had been a strong prima facie case on the evidence, demonstrating that the defendants had knowingly made false statements. Further, he had failed to consider the history of the proceedings between the parties and had been wrong to conclude that it had been in the public interest that such allegations should proceed to a full committal hearing.