Latest Cases

Company – Oppression. Section 272 of the Bahamian Companies Act 1992 did not have the effect of continuing any liability of the appellant directors under s 280 because they had not been under any such liability when their company had been removed from the register. Accordingly, the Privy Council allowed the appellants' appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that the appellants' failure to pay a judgment order had amounted to a liability for unfair and oppressive conduct that had continued after the removal of their company from the register of companies.

Company – Winding-up petition. The petitioner's appeal against the chief registrar's order, dismissing its winding-up petition, with no provision for its costs, was allowed. The petitioner had alleged that the respondent company had failed to repay a loan. The company had disputed the alleged debt, but had later paid it, and both parties had agreed that the petition should be dismissed. The Chancery Division held that, it had been wrong in principle for the chief registrar to deny the petitioner its costs, in circumstances where there had been a dispute and where there had been arguments on either side. The court held that, on the facts, the petition had been justified and that the ordinary order should be made, namely that the company should pay the petitioner's costs of the petition.

Arbitration – Serious irregularity. The claimant buyers' application to challenge an arbitration award succeeded. The Commercial Court held that there had been serious irregularity that had resulted in substantial injustice. Consequently, the matter would be referred to the existing tribunal for reconsideration.

Misrepresentation – Standard of proof. The claims in two related sets of proceedings against the same defendant company succeeded. The Commercial Court held that the defendant's defence of misrepresentation failed, as the defendant had not established the making of an express representation. There was no value in considering whether an implied representation had been made, as there was no evidence that any of the alleged representations had been actually understood or appreciated by the defendant at the time.

European Union – Civil and commercial matters. Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 should be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a payment obligation arising from a decision taken by a general meeting of the owners of property in a building, which did not have legal personality and had been specifically established by law in order to exercise certain rights, where that decision had been taken by a majority of members, but bound all members, should be regarded as falling within the concept of 'matters relating to a contract' within the meaning of that provision. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the failure of the respondent Irish owners, of an apartment in Bulgaria, to pay their contribution to the charges for the building in which their property was situated.

Mental capacity – Power of attorney. Where the signature of B, aged 84, on lasting powers of attorney had been witnessed by one of the attorneys, and where her capacity had subsequently deteriorated, the requirements of reg 9(8)(b) of the Lasting Power of Attorney, Enduring Power of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007, SI 2007/1253, had not been met. Accordingly, the Court of Protection ruled that the LPAs conferred no authority and, accordingly, the Public Guardian was directed to cancel their registration.

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The majority of the construction services carried out by the taxpayer company to a cottage which had been damaged by fire qualified for zero-rating in accordance with Groups 5 and/or 6 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1984. Accordingly, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) reduced the assessment for VAT made to the taxpayer by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In care proceedings concerning three siblings, in which there was a dispute on the expert and professional evidence concerning the care plan for the middle child (J), the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it had been premature for the judge to have held that there was an impasse between the court and the local authority, before he had undertaken a further evaluation process in the light of the agency decision-maker's statement, concerning J. The court, in allowing the authority's appeal in part, held that the judge had erred in cutting short the hearing and in granting the authority permission to appeal against an earlier determination, on the basis that an impasse had been reached. The case was remitted to a different judge for a determination of what, if any orders should be made.

European Union – Consumer protection. Article 15 of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision (EC) 2009/430, should be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a credit agreement was a credit agreement concluded by a 'consumer' within the meaning of art 15, it should not be determined whether the agreement fell within the scope of Directive (EC) 2008/48, in the sense that the total cost of credit in question did not exceed the ceiling set out in art 2(2)(c) of that directive, and that it was irrelevant, in that regard, that the national law transposing that directive did not provide for a higher ceiling. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings between the applicant company and the respondent for the repayment of a loan.

European Union – Reference to European Court. Article 3(2) of Directive (EC) 98/5 should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on account of the incompatibility under that legislation between the status of monk and practice of the profession of lawyer, prohibited a lawyer who had the status of monk, and who was registered as a lawyer with the competent authority of the home member state, from registering with the competent authority of the host member state in order to practise there under his home-country professional title. The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the refusal by the respondent Athens Bar Association, Greece, to grant the applicant monk's application to be entered on the special register of the Athens Bar as a lawyer practising under his home-country professional title.