Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection dismissed an application by the patient's daughter to a joint appointment as deputy with her brother, or the appointment of a completely independent professional deputy on the basis that having regard to s 6(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the daughter had failed to discharge the burden of satisfying the court that the brother had behaved in a way that had contravened his authority or was not in the patient's best interests. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. A registrar had dismissed a bankrupt's application for a declaration that a notice claiming 'after-acquired property' had not been served on him by the trustee in bankruptcy within the statutory time limits, under s 307(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, by the trustee in bankruptcy, and that it was, accordingly, of no effect. The Chancery Division, Bankruptcy Court, in dismissing the bankrupt's appeal, considered the meaning of 'knowledge' in respect of the date on which the trustee had become aware that the property in question had been acquired by, or had devolved on, the bankrupt. It ruled that the term 'knowledge' under ss 307 and 309 of the Act denoted actual knowledge and had to be knowledge of facts and not of mere claims or allegations and that the registrar had not erred in law in relation to the test of knowledge, under those sections of the Act, and had made findings of fact that had been open to her. 

Costs – Interest on costs. The Commercial Court considered the date from which interest, under s 17 of the Judgments Act 1838, should run on costs payable by the claimant. Having considered the applicable principles, it ordered that interest on the costs payable by the claimant to the defendants and to the second third party was to run at the Bank of England Base Rate plus 2% from the dates when the costs had been incurred until a date three months after the orders for costs had been made, and at the rate prescribed by s 17 of the Act thereafter. 

Estoppel – Convention. The proceedings concerned a refusal to register the transfer of shares in a company where, it was alleged, there were pre-emption rights in place. The judge found that there was clear evidence to support an assumption, common to both parties, that there were no valid rights of pre-emption in relation to the shares. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct and that the authorities did not suggest that estoppel by convention was confined to cases of mistake. A mistaken recollection was not legally different from a state of forgetfulness. 

Insolvency – Company. The Chancery Division, in granting a bank's application to restore a company to the register of companies, ruled that, where the Crown disclaimed property vested in it following the dissolution of a company, that disclaimer, under s 1012 of the Companies Act 2006, was not a 'disposition' of property, and the effect of restoration of the company to the register was that its freehold estate was retrospectively re-created and re-vested in the company in all respects as if it had never been dissolved and as if the freehold had never been disclaimed. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Rosian Express SRL against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a games box as a Community trade mark. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Privy Council, in dismissing an appeal by the Central Tenders Board (the CTB) and the Attorney General of Montserrat, ruled that, notwithstanding a procedural defect in the respondent's application to tender, the CTB had had express statutory power and a discretion to accept it. Accordingly, the lower court's decision, upheld on appeal, that the CTB had breached a contract for the erection of a school hall by awarding it to, and then withdrawing it from, the respondent, would stand. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Societe des produits Nestle SA against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark 'NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH'. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's refusal to provide her with accommodation, interim relief and an order compelling the authority to carry out a child in need assessment of her son. The Administrative Court held that the final merits of the claim could not be determined and it was transferred to a High Court judge, who was also nominated to sit in the Family Division, so that a case management hearing could take place as soon as possible. 

Criminal law – Murder. The first appellant appealed against his conviction for murder and conspiracy to murder, and both appellants appealed against their sentences for life imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after 35 years. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appeals, held that there was no doubt that the first appellant's conviction had been the only proper verdict. Further, the sentence had been carefully reviewed by the Court of Appeal and it would not be right to interfere with its judgment.