Latest Cases

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant company's negligence case against the defendant solicitors. The court held that the defendant had adequately warned the claimant about a restriction on a property in which the claimant had sought to obtain an interest. In any event, the claimant had not established that it would have acted differently if different advice had been given. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court declared that the claimant had been unlawfully detained for a period of 13 months. There had been no unlawful delay at the start of the claimant's detention, but after it had been commented that an impasse had been reached, it had been unreasonable to continue detention and release under a strict contact management regime had been appropriate. 

Immigration – Refugee. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to certify his asylum claim as clearly unfounded and return him to Italy for determination of his asylum claim. None of the material before the court rendered it arguable that a tribunal could conclude that the evidential presumption of compliance by Italy with its obligations under European Union law was rebutted. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed an application for summary judgment or, alternatively, to strike out the claimant's claim, in an action concerning alleged negligent tax advice. The court held that it would be wholly wrong to dismiss the claim at the present stage. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division held that the claimant bank was entitled to possession of a property as against the defendant company. There was no defence to the claim, because the lease had been granted without the bank's written consent contrary to the express terms of two charges by which the defendant had charged the property with the repayment of sums due to the bank. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited (Sony) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony and Marpefa, SL, concerning the application by the predecessor of the latter company for registration of a figurative sign 'Vieta' as a Community trade mark. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The Commercial Court dismissed applications by the claimant company for specific disclosure and further information from the defendant, Barclays Bank plc, against which a claim had been brought for allegedly mis-selling an interest rate swap. The court was not satisfied that the documents would be relevant and, therefore, admissible as similar fact evidence. Further, to require Barclays to undertake the search and disclosure exercise proposed would be disproportionate and oppressive. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that it would not be right to make a declaration that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was incompatible with Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically, in the present case, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor would it be appropriate to make a declaration that the 'stop and search' that the claimant had experienced had not been in accordance with the law. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division dismissed applications by the claimant and defendant for summary judgment in respect of a claim for breach of contract and a defence, respectively, where the issue concerned the true consideration due under an asset sale agreement. The evidence currently available did not enable the court to accept that the broadly pleaded case was bound to succeed, nor that it was bound to fail. Further, the court did not accept that the defence was sufficiently shadowy to justify only conditional permission to defend. 

Coroner – Inquest. The Divisional Court held that it could not entertain the claimant's application for mandatory orders quashing the original inquest findings into her son's death and directing that a fresh inquest be conducted. Neither an inquest or an investigation had been 'held' within the meaning of s 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 because neither process had been completed, but it would be open to the claimant to invite the coroner to reconsider his decision.