Latest Cases

Company – Director. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the liquidator of a company, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, against the respondent former director and majority shareholder of the company. It held, among other things, that the claim under s 172 of the Companies Act 2006 failed and the respondent had not been in breach of his duty under s 174 of the 2006 Act. 

Child – Care. The Family Court allowed an application by the local authority to withdraw its application for a care order in the case of L, a baby who was suspected of having suffered injuries at the hands of someone in a pool of suspects that included L's parents. The court held that, in the circumstances, leave to withdraw was the only proper and proportionate order available. 

Power of attorney – Enduring power of attorney. The Court of Protection made rulings as to the persons to be appointed as deputies for P, who had Alzheimer's dementia. It allowed her husband's application to appoint P first cousins once removed to act as deputies and dismissed her son's objections. The son, as principal debtor, could not be a deputy due to his conflict of interest. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Directive (EC) 2003/109 precluded national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which required third-country nationals, when applying for the issue or renewal of a European residence permit in the member state concerned, to pay a fee which varied in amount between €80 and €200, inasmuch as such a fee was disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by that Directive and was liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that Directive. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union made rulings on preliminary issues concerning the interpretation of art 4(3) of Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks. The Court held that, among other things, art 4(3) of the Directive had to be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark was established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which might, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single member state, which did not have to be the state in which the application for the later national mark had been filed, it had to be held that the mark had a reputation in the EU. 

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that sub-para 4 of art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2988/95 was to be interpreted as meaning that the limitation which it laid down was applicable not only to proceedings concerning irregularities which led to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of art 5 of that Regulation but also to proceedings which led to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of art 4. 

Personal injury – Jury trial – Contributory negligence – Damages. Court of Session: Refusing a motion for a new trial in an action by a pursuer who was bitten on her lip by her brother-in-law's dog, a jury having awarded damages of £5,000 in respect of solatium, concluded that the accident was partly due to the fault of the defender and partly the fault of the pursuer, and allocated 85% of the fault to pursuer and 15% to defender, the court held that the jury's conclusion that responsibility for her injury lay almost entirely with the pursuer was not one with which it was entitled to interfere, and nor did it consider that it was entitled to interfere with the jury's award. 

Contract – Joint venture – Pre-contractual duties of disclosure – Misrepresentation. Court of Session: In a dispute among the parties to a joint venture agreement relating to the development of an area of land, which four of the five parties held title to parts of, in which the pursuers sought reduction of the agreement on the grounds (i) that they entered into it in reliance on a material misrepresentation by the first and second defenders regarding the ownership of first defender's area of land; and (ii) that the first and second defenders were in breach of a duty to disclose material facts to them at the time when the agreement was entered into, the court held that the pursuers' case based on uberrima fides and a duty of disclosure was irrelevant and they had failed to aver any misrepresentation by any of the defenders or anyone speaking on their behalf, and it dismissed the action. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a failed Zimbabwean asylum seeker, who challenged a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court held that anxious scrutiny was applied to the petitioner's further representations and it was satisfied that the decision reached in the challenged decision letter was one which a reasonable decision maker was entitled to make. 

Company – Administration order. The Chancery Division made several orders, following the filing for insolvency protection in 2009 by the companies in the Nortel Group, in respect of the net proceeds from the global sale which were being held in escrow pending agreement or court determination as to how the proceeds should be allocated amongst the parties. The orders in general permitted the administrators in the United Kingdom pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency Rules 1986, to declare dividends to its unsecured non-preferential creditors and to promulgate company voluntary arrangements in respect of the relevant companies in the group.