Latest Cases

Shipping – Contract. The appeal of the claimant charterer (Boskalis) against findings of an arbitration tribunal was dismissed. The Commercial Court held that the tribunal had not erred in its interpretation of the charterparty in the case, and had been correct to find that Boskalis could not recover sums paid (including pursuant to an award from the tribunal) even though it had a defence, if that defence was not a counterclaim in respect of financial loss resulting from such payment or by way of an audit under the charterparty.

Divorce – Financial provision. In the course of financial remedies proceedings, the husband applied, under FPR 24.12, for the issue of a letter of request for the examination of the wife in Florida, concerning the status of certain alleged assets there. The Family Court, in dismissing the application, held that, while such an application could be made in respect of a party to the proceedings, on the facts, the request was manifestly an attempt to go fishing, and that it would be disproportionate and unlawful to grant the application in circumstances where, among other things, the husband had produced no prima facie evidence that such assets actually existed.

Social security – Benefit. The benefit cap which had been introduced by s 96(1) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and amended by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 (the revised benefit cap) were lawful as they did not discriminate against the appellants in relation to their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' appeals against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, which had also rejected the appellants' case.

Health and safety at work – Organisation of working time. Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive (EC) 2003/88, read in the light of art 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and arts 4(1), 11(3) and 16(3) of Council Directive (EEC) 89/391 should be interpreted as precluding a law of a member state that, according to the interpretation given to it in national caselaw, did not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured. The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the lack of a system for recording the time worked each day by the workers employed by Deutsche Bank SAE.

Land – Rates. The valuation officer's appeal was upheld in a case concerning the correct approach to the determination of the rateable value of the respondent's office building in Blackpool, in circumstances where the evidence, at the relevant time, showed a general demand in the area for comparable office buildings, but no actual tenant willing to pay a positive price for the building itself. The valuation officer had initially assessed the rateable value of the property at £490,000, based on other office buildings of similar age and quality, occupied by public sector tenants at rents of the same order. However, the Valuation Tribunal for England (the VTE) had reduced the rateable value to £1. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) had allowed the valuation's officer's appeal, in circumstances where the parties had agreed that no-one in the real world would have been prepared to occupy the property and pay a positive price at the material valuation date. However, the VTE's assessment of the value at £1 had been restored on appeal. The Supreme Court restored the decision of the UT which had held that the correct approach required the rateable value to be assessed by reference to the general demand, as evidenced by the occupation of other office properties with similar characteristics.

Investigatory powers – Regulation of Investigatory powers. The judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court was not excluded by s 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In so deciding, the Supreme Court also held that the inclusion of reference to decisions relating to 'jurisdiction' in s 67(8) made no material difference to the court's approach.

Costs – Judicial review. The appellant was entitled to his costs where he had withdrawn his application for judicial review of the respondent's decision not to comply with his Freedom of Information Act request, as the respondent had failed to comply with the applicable pre-action protocol. Accordingly, the Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal.

Insurance – Policy. The Commercial Court made rulings in a dispute arising from a fire at the claimant company's premises. The defendant insurer had admitted liability, but there was dispute as to the appropriate basis for assessing compensation. Among other things, the court held that the claimant was entitled to be indemnified on the reinstatement basis in respect of the buildings, plant and machinery which had been damaged or destroyed in the fire. At the time of the fire, the claimant's insurance had been subject to a 20% co-insurance provision, and its claim for an indemnity in respect of the buildings, plant and machinery was to be reduced accordingly.

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The respondent's continued occupation of property that her husband and their family had been allowed to live in as part of the husband's contract of employment subsequently became a periodic assured tenancy, by virtue of s 4 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, in circumstances where the respondent continued to live in the property after her husband had left and even after their divorce. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appellants' appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appellants' application which had been made to it by way of a reference of a notice proposing a new rent under an assured periodic tenancy.

Employment – Termination. The judge had not reversed the burden of proof, erred in refusing to admit evidence or made perverse findings of fact. Accordingly, the Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claim against the respondent for damages for wrongful termination