Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A freezing injunction had been made in respect of a company of which MW was director. The company and MW were found to be in contempt of the order because of disputed payments made in discharge of repayment of a loan and for outstanding arrears of rent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal by the company and MW on the grounds that the judge had taken too narrow a view of the payments which had, in the circumstances, been made in the ordinary course of business and so fell within an exception to the freezing order. 

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister appealed against the Council of the Inns of Court disciplinary tribunal's finding that he was guilty of professional misconduct. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the tribunal had given adequate reasons and had been fully aware of the context, and that the conduct was sufficiently serious as to amount to professional misconduct. 

Company – Shares. The Companies Court made findings regarding a claim brought by B, concerning her dismissal from the directorship of an optician's practice and the alleged devaluation of shares that she held. The court held that two of her six claims succeeded, and those matters warranted an adjustment to the price payable for B's shares. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. An order had been made under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, for the return of four children to Australia. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the father's appeal. A finding that the children objected to returning to Australia would be substituted and, in the exercise of the resulting discretion, the mother's application for the children's summary return was dismissed. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, when aged 15 years, had inflicted serious violence causing death, for which he was convicted of murder and a minimum term of 11 years, less time spent on remand, had been imposed. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court refused to recommend a reduction of the tariff, as his very good progress could not cross the extremely high hurdle of exceptional and unforeseen. 

European Union – Insolvency proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 13 of the Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 should be interpreted as meaning that its application was subject to the condition that, after taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the act at issue could not be challenged on the basis of the law governing the act (lex causae). 

Transport – Private hire vehicle. The claimant Transport for London sought a declaration that the first defendant's, Uber, network private hire vehicles (PHVs) were not equipped with a taximeter in contravention of s 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. The Administrative Court, in granting a declaration, held that Uber's PHVs were not equipped with a taximeter as defined by s 11(3) of the Act. The driver's smartphone with a driver's app was not a device for calculating fare by itself or in conjunction with a server and even if it was, the vehicle was not equipped with it. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, should be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings, a situation where there was no possibility for a national court to revise a final decision of a court or tribunal made in the course of civil proceedings when that decision was found to be incompatible with an interpretation of EU law upheld by the Court after the date on which that decision had become final, even though such a possibility did exist as regards final decisions of a court or tribunal incompatible with EU law made in the course of administrative proceedings. 

Shipping – Collision. In two cases concerning collision actions in the Admiralty court, the claimant ship owners had been refused an extension of time for issuing their actions in personam. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal in the first case and refused permission to appeal in the second. The claims had been time-barred and, in the case of the appeal, the relevant proceedings to which the time limit had applied had been the in personam action and not the earlier, within time, in rem action. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 27(1)(d) of Directive (EEC) 92/83 should be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to exempt the alcohol products covered by that directive from the harmonised excise duty when they were used for the production of medicine applied to ethyl alcohol used by an undertaking for cleaning or disinfecting equipment and facilities used in the production of medicines.