Latest Cases

Practice – Stay. The proceedings arose from the first applicant tax office's and the second applicant bank's appeals against the decision of the respondent joint special administrators to reject their respective proofs of debt in relation to a company in administration. The Chancery Division held that the first applicant's application to stay its appeal in order to allow the underlying claim, which formed the subject of the proof, to be resolved by the specialist German tax or fiscal courts, would be allowed. It further held that the second applicant's applications for a stay would be declined.

Practice – Contempt of Court. The appellant's contempt of court in breaching a Worldwide freezing orders designed to provide payment to investors by the Financial Conduct Authority was plainly so serious that no sanction other than a significant term of imprisonment could be justified. The sentence of six months had been imposed as punishment for the past breaches, taking into account the admissions made (not at the earliest opportunity) by the appellant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that on that basis, it could not be said that a term of six months was outside the range reasonably open to the judge.

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant bank's application for summary judgment succeeded, in a claim concerning the alleged failure of the first defendant company (Assam) to pay sums owing under an amended facility agreement (the AFA). The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, Assam had no realistic prospect of successfully denying at a trial that the disputed four categories of payment had been contractually owed. Consequently, the allegation that the bank had made a misrepresentation as to the principal sum owed, which had induced Assam to enter into the AFA, fell away.

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant unsuccessfully brought a claim against his GP (the defendant) for damages for alleged clinical negligence. The claimant had contended that, if the treatment provided by the defendant at a consultation had been of a proper standard, the claimant would have been referred urgently to the local NHS mental health services, with the result that he would not have tried to commit suicide or suffered serious neurological injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claim failed on breach of duty and causation. It ruled that, on the balance of probability, the claimant had not disclosed current suicidal thoughts and planning to the defendant on the day of the consultation.

Injunction – Interim. In conspiracy to injure by unlawful means proceedings brought by the respondent cyber-security business against the appellants, that included a rival business, the judge had been correct to grant an injunction restraining the appellants from carrying on penetration testing in-house. However, the scope of the injunction had been too wide insofar as it prevented the appellants from carrying on penetration testing and red teaming by outsourcing, as that was their existing business. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal against the grant of a springboard injunction in favour of the respondents, save to the extent that the injunction was too wide in its scope.

Environment – Site of special scientific interest. It was accepted that Natural England had a duty under s 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) was of special scientific interest. The s 28G duty applied when Natural England made decisions on badger control licences. However, the Administrative Court held, among other things, that in the present proceedings, only some of the sites at issue had special features. Consequently, the claimant's case that in assessing the risks in those sites, Natural England had omitted relevant interest features which could be adversely affected by operations under those licences, had limited success.

Income tax – Earnings from employment. There was nothing either in the wording of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 or in the external material on which the taxpayer companies relied that supported their construction of the definition of a 'managed service company' (MSC) provider in s 61B(1)(d) of that Act. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had correctly decided that the company which had set up the taxpayers was an MSC provider, so that the taxpayers were MSCs. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the taxpayers' appeal against the tribunal's decision.

Solicitor – Practice. Following an intervention into a solicitor's practice by the Law Society for dishonesty, it could not be said that the words 'all sums of money held by or on behalf of the solicitor or his firm in connection with … his practice or former practice' in para 6(2)(a) in sch 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 included the right to recover loans made by the errant solicitor from his client account to third parties, prior to the intervention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, accordingly allowed the defendant solicitor's appeal.

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The applicant company's application for the approval of a scheme of arrangement succeeded. The aim of the scheme was to transfer company assets to Ireland, to protect them from the adverse effects of Brexit. The Chancery Division held that the scheme would be sanctioned and the reduction of capital approved.

Criminal law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice handed down Amendment No 8 to the Criminal Practice Directions 2015 on 28 March 2019, which shall come into force on 1 April 2019.