Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division granted applications by three Cayman companies against an individual, T, who was resident in England, for an order under s 426(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, to render assistance to the Grand Court of the Cayman and its joint official liquidators, and a freezing order against T. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division considered the appropriate construction of the BCA occupational pension scheme (the plan). It held that additional wording would be interpreted into cl 22.1 of the rules of the plan to clarify the terms of the annual pension increase and that that decision would be publicised by means of a circular sent to members of the plan. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision declining to determine his application for planning permission for the construction of a detached double garage. As the authority conceded, it had erred in having stated it had not been possible to validate an application that sought permission to amend a building which was itself unlawful and that it had been irrelevant. 

Nationality – British nationality. The Administrative Court quashed the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of the claimants' application for naturalisation. The Secretary of State's exercise of her statutory discretion, under s 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, to refuse the claimants' naturalisation because she wanted to deter potential extremists from their activities through knowing that family members would not be naturalised in consequence was beyond its scope and purpose. 

Practice – Strike out. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimants' appeal against an order striking out their claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors and declining to grant the claimants a retrospective extension of time for filing an allocation questionnaire. It held, among other things, that the master had been within his discretion to order that the claim be struck out. 

Costs – Taxation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on two appeals concerning the 'one fifth rule' under sub-s 70(9) of the Solicitors Act 1974 and the interpretation of 'special circumstances' under sub-s 70(10) of that Act in the resolution of costs assessments regarding the fees charged by solicitors in their bills to clients. 

Coroner – Inquest. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant's judicial review proceedings, ordered the inquest into her mother's death to be held with a jury, as there was reason to suspect that the death had resulted from a police officer's omission in the purported exercise of the officer's duty while the deceased was attending a police station as a visitor. Further, in all cases where the issue of art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was raised for consideration, the coroner should respond with clarity, giving brief reasons if necessary. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal against the setting aside of deportation orders she had made in respect of two EEA nationals with a permanent right of residence in the United Kingdom. The court explained the difference between the circumstances for deportation of non-EEA foreign national offenders and EEA offenders and the requirements for the deportation of the latter. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, once one had arrived at the conclusion that a previous decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was admissible evidence of what it had decided, then, in the absence of guidelines laid down by the Upper Tribunal itself, it was a question of what weight a subsequent tribunal should give it. No doubt the extent to which the previous decision was a decision on general points of interest, rather than specific facts and the cogency of the reasoning would impact on the weight to be given to a particular decision, but that was a matter for the subsequent tribunal. 

Company – Take-over bid. The Supreme Court, an allowing the appellants' appeal, held that the proper purpose rule in s 171(b) of the Companies Act 2006 applied to the respondent company's decision to issue notices restricting the rights attaching to their shares under the company's articles. Having determined the proper purposes of the relevant article, it found that the company had acted for an improper purpose.