Latest Cases

Company – Director. The Companies Court dismissed the claimant's appeal against an order disqualifying him from acting as a director of a company for 12 years. The order was not obtuse or conceptually incoherent as alleged by the claimant. Further, the registrar's judgment in relation to the length of disqualification was in accord with principle and authority. 

Proceeds of crime – Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The claimant National Crime Agency sought a civil recovery order, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, over eight properties, the proceeds of rental income, and English and Luxembourg bank accounts. The Queen's Bench Division held that, with the exception of one property, the assets were recoverable, as they had been acquired through unlawful conduct, namely, drug dealing, money laundering or VAT fraud. 

Child – Welfare. Following the removal of his brain tumour, the parents of A, a boy aged five, disputed the hospital's proposed further treatment. They, before removing him to Spain, proposed therapy generally unavailable in the United Kingdom and A's referral to a facility in Prague. On the local authority's application, the judge made A a ward of the court and ordered a further hearing. Following receipt of further information, the Family Division held that there was no reason to stand in the way of the parents' proposal. Both proposed courses were reasonable and it was the parents who bore the heavy responsibility of making a decision. 

Medical treatment – Withdrawal of treatment. The applicant NHS Foundation Trust sought authority to provide, in the exercise of its clinical discretion, life-sustaining treatment to the first respondent 52 year old man, TH, in a minimally conscious state. The Court of Protection held that the correct course was to adjourn the issue concerning the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration to provide for a structured clinical assessment. It considered TH's views and found that the weight to be given to those views and how they were to be balanced should await the conclusion of that assessment. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The claimant company, Richmond, formed an agreement with the first defendant company, Chester, whereby Chester would invest in Richmond. Chester subsequently instructed another company to market shares in Richmond. Richmond subsequently claimed that the way in which the shares had been marketed had resulted in a substantial loss of Richmond's business. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, although the defendants had committed breaches of their statutory, contractual and equitable duties, none of the breaches of duty committed had caused any loss to Richmond. 

Reparation – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought damages in respect of loss caused by fire in a farmhouse and outbuildings they owned, averring that the fire damage was caused as a result of fault and negligence of the defenders, firefighters having concluded that they had extinguished a fire at the farm but the fire having re-ignited after their departure, the court concluded that the pursuers had pled a relevant case which entitled them to proof before answer. 

Natural justice – Judge. The appellant doctor was struck off by a Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP). He appealed the FTPP's determination on the basis that, inter alia, he had not had a fair hearing because the legal assessor had made disclosures which, he contended, indicated actual or potential bias. The legal assessor and the judge sitting in the appeal had been members of the same barristers' chambers and had a continuing professional relationship. The appellant sought that the judge recuse himself. The judge would recuse himself on the ground that the fair-minded observer, knowing the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that he was biased. 

Pleading – Amendment. The defendant company sought to amend its CPR Pt 20 breach of contract claim against the third party company to include a negligence claim. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that, although the claim was statute-barred, the new claim framed in negligence arose out of the substantially the same facts. The factors against the exercise of discretion to amend were outweighed and the defendant would be permitted to amend, pursuant to CPR 17.4(2). 

Town and country planning – Site of historic interest. The claimant applied to have Germany Beck added to the defendant's battlefields register as the site of the Battle of Fulford. The defendant, applying its own selection guide, refused the application on the ground of location uncertainty. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant had not erred in law, and had properly understood and applied its guidance. 

Practice – Summary judgment. In the course of proceedings concerning the purchase of shares in a gaming company, the claimant company applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration reflecting that the first defendant company had no realistic prospect of defending the costs and expenses elements of litigation in Italy.