Latest Cases

Injunction – Interim injunction. It was clear that the claimant company's application for an interim injunction to suspend the defendant local authority's decision to award or execute a road-improvement contract to the interested party had to be refused. The Administrative Court in reaching that decision set out the considerations material in deciding whether the necessary public element was present.

European Union – Financial markets. Directive (EC) 2004/39, as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU, in particular arts 8, 23, 50 and 51 thereof, arts 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principles of non‑discrimination and proportionality should be interpreted as meaning that a temporary prohibition on exercising the activity of financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services fell neither within the scope of that directive, nor that of arts 49 and 56 TFEU or that of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. Accordingly, arts 8, 23, 50 and 51 of that directive, arts 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non‑discrimination and proportionality did not preclude such a prohibition. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the respondent Italian National Companies and Stock Exchange Commission's decision to temporarily prohibit the applicant from exercising the activity of financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services.

Practice – Family proceedings. A High Court writ of control could only be issued in a case otherwise proceeding in the Family Court if (and only if) a transfer to the High Court of the proceedings had been authorised by the President of the Family Division, a judge of the Court of Appeal or a puisne judge. Accordingly, the Family Court ruled that a High Court writ of control (concerning a lump sum which the husband had been required to pay the wife, by virtue of a consent order made in divorce proceedings) had not been lawfully generated and issued, because no order sanctioning a transfer of the proceedings to the High Court had been made by the President of the Family Division, a judge of the Court of Appeal or a puisne judge. Accordingly, the writ of control was set aside and the High Court enforcement officers were ordered to return, to the husband, the sum of £8,304.72 which had been wrongly taken from him as part of the enforcement process.

Contract – Warranty. The claimant company's claim succeeded, in part, in a dispute concerning the valuation of a company that it had acquired through a share purchase agreement. The Commercial Court held that there had been breaches of warranty regarding certain of the company's accounts. Among other things, the accounts had underrated the company's liability to pay claims under a scheme, and there had been a failure to disclose a change in the method of remunerating insurance brokers which had occurred part way through the 2013 financial year, which had allowed the company to defer accounting for a large amount of that expense.

European Union – Environment. Annex III to Directive (EC) 2008/98, as amended, had to be interpreted to the effect that a holder of waste which could be classified under either hazardous waste codes or non-hazardous waste codes, but the composition of which was not immediately known, should, in view of that classification, determine that composition and ascertain the hazardous substances which might reasonably be found in that waste in order to establish whether that waste had hazardous properties and could, for that purpose, use the sampling, chemical analyses and tests provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 440/2008, or any other internationally recognised sampling, chemical analysis or test. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against the defendants concerning, among other things, illegal waste trafficking.

Company – Insolvency. The applicant provisional liquidators' application for recognition in Great Britain of a company's liquidation as a 'foreign main proceeding' under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030, succeeded. The Chancery Division held that s 161 of the Bermuda Companies Act could fairly be described as a 'law relating to insolvency', as per art 2(g) of the UNICTRAL model law. It was clearly right that a winding up on just and equitable grounds could qualify for recognition in circumstances where the entity was insolvent.

Police – Negligence. The claimant, aged 59, who had autistic spectrum disorder and bi-polar disorder, had established (to the extent specified in the judgment) liability against the defendant Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police for trespass to the person and in negligence. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled, concerning an incident in which police officers had used CS gas and a taser, and had physically restrained the claimant outside his flat, after he had suffered an episode of acute behavioural disorder.

Criminal law – Manslaughter. The judge's direction to the jury on attribution of knowledge of the business (or a worker) with that of the defendant on the basis that the defendant had been responsible for the system in the restaurant had rendered his conviction unsafe. However, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against conviction for manslaughter on that ground, held that the judge had not been wrong to refuse to direct the jury to consider whether there had been a serious and obvious risk that the defendant's breach of duty would cause the deceased to die, as opposed to others suffering from peanut allergy.

National Health Service – Charges. Regulation 15(b) of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/238, bore its natural and ordinary meaning, and applied to: (i) asylum seekers in the classic sense, who relied on the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951; (ii) applicants for humanitarian protection or what in the EU jurisprudence was called 'subsidiary protection'; and (iii) applicants for temporary protection. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the defendants' decisions to charge her for treatment for advanced *** cancer.

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant architect brought a libel action, arising from articles relating to the Grenfell Tower disaster, which had been published in the hard copy and online versions of the defendant's newspaper, The Times. The Queen's Bench Division, in determining two preliminary issues, ruled on the meaning of the words complained of and held that such meaning was defamatory at common law.