Latest Cases

Practice – Parties. The appellant former Chairman of Swansea City Association Football Club brought a claim against the respondent solicitors for damages in contract and tort, alleging negligent advice in relation to his matrimonial affairs. He appealed against a district judge's order, dismissing his application to substitute a firm (LLP) for the current defendant (the Company); and allowing the Company's application to strike out the claim. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal in part, ruled that the district judge had erred in, among other things, finding that the Company had been named as defendant instead of the LLP by mistake; and in finding that he had no jurisdiction to allow the substitution. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to allow the substitution sought, and it exercised its discretion afresh to permit the substitution of the LLP in respect of the relevant advice given in October/November 2011. Further, the court granted the appellant permission to raise certain new grounds in his amended grounds of appeal. However, it held that the respondent solicitors had an arguable case that any claim arising out of advice given in April 2011 was statute-barred for limitation. Accordingly, the court refused permission to allow substitution or addition of the LLP in relation to the claim arising out of the April 2011 advice.

European Union – Consumer protection. Article 1(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 should be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which referred to the national law applicable so far as concerned the determination of jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties to the contract, did not fall outside the scope of that directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the territorial jurisdiction of national courts to hear an action for payment of the sale price, brought by the seller or supplier against the consumer.

Practice – Parties. The appellant Jamaican General Legal Council's appeal failed. Proceedings had been initiated by an individual who purported to represent the complainant. The complainant had later ratified the individual's appointment. The Privy Council held that there was no statutory requirement, express or implied, in the Jamaican Legal Profession Act (the LPA) or elsewhere, that prohibited the validation of the initiation of proceedings under s 12 of the LPA by way of ratification by the person alleged to be aggrieved.

Contract – Bond. The claimant trustee claimed for unpaid monies due under bonds pursuant to a trust deed, with appended bond conditions, it had entered into with the first defendant issuer, as guaranteed by the second defendant guarantor. The Commercial Court found, among other things, that the claimant had validly exercised its right in respect of bonds repayable as a result of early redemption. Accordingly, it held that the claimant succeeded in its claim against the defendants, and was entitled to, among other things, $28,201,878.12 less $760,744.53 applied from dividends paid on shares that had been pledged as security by the first defendant.

Pension – War widow's pension. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) had correctly decided that the effect of the relevant provisions of the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006, SI 2006/606, was that the respondent war widow had been entitled to a restored war widow's pension from the day after her second husband had died in 2000. Further, there had been no obligation on her to make a claim at that time, with the result that she had actually become entitled to such a pension from that date. Consequently, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Secretary of State for Defence's appeal against the tribunal's decision.

Practice – Pre-trial and post judgment relief. Although there was no conceptual or legal prohibition on suing 'persons unknown', a court should be inherently cautious about granting injunctions against unknown persons since the reach of such an injunction was necessarily difficult to assess in advance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set out broad requirements to be considered when granting such an injunction and found that the injunction granted in the present case only partially met those requirements.

Probate – Practice. In contested probate proceedings arising from the respondent accountant of the deceased's application for probate, none of the grounds of appeal by the appellant daughter of the deceased had come anywhere near placing the appeal within that very limited special category which justified a departure from the Privy Council's practice of declining to interfere with concurrent findings of pure fact. Accordingly, the Privy Council, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the findings of the judge and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, that included that the deceased's will had been signed and duly executed by the deceased.

Trade mark – Infringement. The appellants' application for a stay of proceedings had been dismissed on the basis that the English proceedings brought by Easygroup Ltd (the respondent) and the Cypriot proceedings, brought by the appellants, did not have the same 'cause of action' for the purposes of art 29 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. The appellants had issued proceedings in Cyprus against, among others, the respondent, for declarations regarding the appellants' continued use of the phrase 'easy rent a car' and or similar phrases, which were similar to the respondent's registered trade marks. The respondent had subsequently commenced proceedings against the appellants in the UK for alleged infringements of their UK-registered marks and passing off. On appeal by the appellants regarding the dismissal of their stay application, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the 'cause' and the 'object' of the two sets of proceedings were the same and accordingly, allowed the appellants' appeal.

Family proceedings – Financial remedies. The wife's application for a reporting restrictions order, in advance of the hearing of her appeal in financial remedy proceedings, was allowed. The order had been sought to protect the identity of the parties' son (AB). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled that it was one of those exceptional cases, where it was appropriate to make orders for anonymisation and the restriction on reporting certain aspects of the case. It further held that the balance between the rights of the media under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the public interest in open justice, and the rights of the parties and of AB, under art 8 of the Convention, on the facts of the case, tipped heavily in favour of the making of the reporting restrictions order.

Practice – Striking out. The claimant leaseholder's appeal against the striking out of his claim succeeded in part. The proceedings concerned a compulsory purchase order obtained by the defendant local authority for the development of land that included the flats where the claimant had an interest. The claimant contended that he had accepted an offer made in a letter by the authority that demonstrated an intention of the authority to purchase the property from him. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that there was a real prospect of the claimant establishing at trial that the letter had amounted to an open contract for the sale of the claimant's leasehold interest in the property.