Latest Cases

Partnership – Dissolution. The proceedings related to a claim by the deceased's wife, her sister and the executors of the deceased's estate, for among other things, the sale of farm land that had been farmed under a partnership between the deceased and his first defendant sister. The Chancery Division held, among other things, that, rather than sell the farm land on the open market pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, it would exercise its discretion and make an order permitting the first defendant a period of two months to complete the purchase of the farm land based on the price of £3,245,000.

Costs – Costs capping order. The claimant's application for a costs capping order in its claim for judicial review of the defendant local authority's adoption of a revised statement of licensing policy, which made changes to special policy areas and the core hours policy for licensed premises failed because it did not involve consideration of a point of law of general public importance. However, the Administrative Court allowed the authority's application for security for costs, as the claimant would be unable to pay its costs if ordered to do so.

Local authority – Restructuring of local government. The defendant local authority had misinterpreted para 120 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews in England (the guidance) and, as a result, had erred in concluding that its decision to make an order abolishing the two claimant parish councils was consistent with the guidance. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the claimants claims for judicial review and quashed the order.

Criminal law – Prosecutor. It had not been open to the judge to move to an immediate trial on the date of the first court appearance when the associate prosecutor had not had rights of audience to conduct the trial and, in resisting the submission of no case, a properly qualified prosecutor could have argued that there had been a circumstantial case to answer. Accordingly, the Divisional Court held that the judge had not been entitled, as a matter of law, to accede to the defence submission of no case to answer to the charge of criminal damage.

Divorce – Jurisdiction. The wife appealed against a judge's order, staying her English divorce petition, which had been issues in 2018. The judge had found that separation proceedings, which the husband had issued in 2012 in Italy, were onging. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal in part, ruled that the English court should defer to the Italian court and let it determine whether it remained seised or whether the proceedings before it had lapsed, leaving only the English court seised. Accordingly, the wife's divorce petition, and the husband's application for its stay or dismissal, were adjourned, pending the Italian court's determination of the wife's application for the stay or dismissal of the husband's divorce proceedings.

Family Proceedings – Fact Finding. Following a fact finding hearing within care proceedings relating to four children, the judge had made findings that the father had 'failed to protect' the youngest child (J) by failing to inform various medical professionals that J was no longer suffering from seizures or apnoea. Consequently, the judge held that J had received medication and oxygen which he no longer required. In allowing the father's appeal against those findings, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the findings not only contradicted the available evidence but also contradicted the findings the judge had made in his substantive judgment.

Costs – Indemnity costs. The Chancery Division held that the present case was not one where it was appropriate to limit the liability of a company (ChapelGate), which had funded an unsuccessful claimant, to the overall maximum of the funding that had been provided to the claimant, because of the application of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [2005] 3 All ER 613. The court ordered that ChapelGate should pay each of the defendants' costs of the proceedings incurred after ChapelGate and the claimant had entered into their funding agreement, to be assessed on the indemnity basis if not agreed.

Injunction – Quia timet action. The proceedings concerned the claimant landowners' application for a permanent injunction against the first defendant tenant and his second defendant son, to restrain them from interfering with their rights under various tenancy agreements. Neither of the conditions for the grant of a quia timet injunction had been satisfied and no injunction would be granted as final relief. Accordingly, the Chancery Division dismissed the claimants' application for a permanent injunction. The court also provided guidance on the approach to the construction of a reservation in favour of a landlord.

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant sustained a fracture dislocation to her cervical spine while in a pool at a hotel in Mallorca, which was operated by the first defendant (the hotel). She brought a claim against the hotel's insurer (which was the second defendant) and the hotel, under the Recast Brussels Regulation 1215/2012. The Queen's Bench Division granted the hotel relief from sanctions to challenge its jurisdiction to determine the claim. However, the court dismissed the application challenging its jurisdiction, holding that, on the ordinary reading of reg 13(3) of the Regulation, the existence of the claim against the hotel's insurer permitted an additional, related, claim against the hotel (as the insured). The court ruled that it was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL v Keefe[2015] All ER (D) 213 (Jun), which held that there was no linguistic or purposive ground for requiring that there be some kind of policy dispute between insurer and insured for reg 13(3) of the Regulation to bite. Further, and among other things, the court held that there was nothing in regs 17 or 18 of the Regulation (which enabled a 'consumer' to bring proceedings' against the other party to the contract in the courts of the consumer's domicile, providing that the counterparty had directed its commercial activities to that member state) to say that that consumer had to be the one who had actually concluded the contract. It held that a person who had contracted through an agent had still 'concluded' a contact. Accordingly, the court ruled that the claimant, whose friend had made the group booking for the holiday to Mallorca, qualified as a consumer and that the court had jurisdiction over the claim under regs 17 and 18 of the Regulation also.

Air traffic – Airport. The defendant Secretary of State's designation concerning a third runway at Heathrow had not been unlawful by not treating proposals for a second runway at Gatwick as an alternative for the purposes of art 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, had not breached art 5(1) and (2) of Directive (EC) 2001/42, or by reason of the Secretary of State not carrying out the required statutory consultation with an open mind. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the decision.