Latest Cases

Practice – Evidence. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the defendant's application to adduce expert evidence from a quantity surveyor with expertise in dispute resolution, on condition that it was subject to close control. In all the circumstances, expert evidence was necessary and, in any event, there were issues in respect of which the evidence would be of assistance and it was reasonable to require expert evidence to be given in the context of the proceedings as a whole. 

Contract – Offer and acceptance. The Commercial Court made rulings concerning, among other things, the amount that the claimant company owed the defendant company for work carried out by the defendant on an aircraft. The court held that a 'gentleman's agreement' made between the parties was binding and would affect the entire amount remaining to be paid by the claimant. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that the patient had capacity to determine her own medical treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The consequence of that decision was that M would die. 

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. 

Income tax – Profits. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayers against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to strike out the taxpayers' respective cases on the bases that: (i) the claim that s 58 of the Finance Act 2008 was incompatible with art 56 of the European Community Treaty had been adjudicated on in previous proceedings, namely R (on the application of Shiner) v Revenue and Customs Comrs[2011] STC 1878 (Shiner); and (ii) that it was an abuse of process to argue that point. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The Supreme Court dismissed Marks and Spencer's appeal in which it had sought to recover an apportionment of rent paid quarterly in advance, in circumstances where it had exercised a break clause that had led to determination of the lease during that quarter. Save in a very clear case, it would be wrong to attribute to a landlord and a tenant, particularly when they had entered into a full and professionally drafted lease, an intention that the tenant should receive an apportioned part of the rent payable and paid in advance, when the non-apportionability of such rent had been so long and clearly established. Therefore, the court refused to imply a term allowing Marks and Spencer to recover the sums paid. 

Local authority – Transport. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal by the claimant local authority against the award of an arbitrator on preliminary questions regarding the vesting of certain highway property in the respondent Transport for London. It made rulings on the meaning of 'highway' in the circumstances, and the extent of the horizontal and vertical planes covered by the freehold. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant landlord's appeal against a judge's decision declaring that the claimant lessee was entitled to acquire the freehold of a house leased from the landlord, pursuant to Pt 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The judge had been entitled to reach the decision which he had. It would not be consistent with the purposes of the Act to allow the legal division of a party wall to disqualify the house from enfranchisement 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that, following a judgment in favour of the defendant in a building contract dispute, as a matter of construction, an offer to settle was and/or should be treated as a defendant's CPR Pt 36 offer and costs were awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis. 

European Union – Regulations. The Companies Court considered whether to grant certified copies of two judgments to the applicants to enable them to take enforcement proceedings in Spain against the first, second and fourth respondents. The court held that, on the true construction of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/200 and Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, there was no discretion to refuse the application.