Latest Cases

Indictment – Joinder of charges. It had been a proper exercise of the judge's discretion to refuse severance of the indictment of charges concerning indecency with young children allegedly committed between 1986 and 1991, and of possession of indecent photographs of a child in 2015. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction, held that, where the evidence on one count would be properly admissible on the other as evidence of bad character, it was difficult to argue that the defendant would be prejudiced or embarrassed in his defence by having both counts or sets of counts on the same indictment.

Company – Restoration to register. The applicant company shareholders had not failed in respect of their duty of full and frank disclosure in respect of all material facts when making their application for the restoration of three companies to the Register of Companies. Accordingly, the Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the respondent liquidators' and company managers' application to set aside the order of restoration would be dismissed.

Elections – Local government. Voter ID pilots for the 2019 local elections were made lawfully for the purpose of allowing proposed changes to local government electoral procedures to be tested by pilot schemes with a view to modernising those electoral procedures in the public interest. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, further rejected his contention that the requirement to produce voter ID did not concern 'how' voting was to take place, within s 10(2)(a) of the of the Representation of the People Act 2000, but 'whether' voting could take place at all.

Contract – Implied terms. The contracts formed between the defendant, the Post Office Ltd, and the claimants, (who were mostly sub-postmasters) were relational contracts, such that there had been an implied duty of good faith in the agreement(s) between the parties. It followed that the Post Office had not been entitled to act in a way that would be considered commercially unacceptable by reasonable and honest people. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled, among other things, in respect of a group litigation brought by the claimants, in circumstances where they had been held responsible for alleged shortfalls in their financial accounting with the Post Office, which they contended had been caused by problems with the way the Post Office's computerised system for accounting had operated.

Contract – Formation. The claimant company's claim as formulated for loss of profits, arising from the defendant company's breach of contract in failing to supply machines that could perform in accordance with the quotation and as represented, failed for want of proof. However, the facts, as established by the evidence, had showed that the claimant had suffered some losses caused by the defendant's breach of contract. Accordingly, the Technology and Construction Court allowed the claim in respect of certain alternative grounds and held that the claimant was entitled to damages in the sum of SAR 3,716,769.

European Union – Trade marks. Lighting apparatus for industrial use, on the one hand, and electric lights and decorations, on the other hand, could not be deemed to be similar for the purposes of art 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2009, on the basis of the mere fact that they were both 'light sources' or 'electrical lighting apparatus', given that the nature and intended purpose of those goods were different, and that they were neither complementary nor in competition. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union allowed the action by IQ Group Holdings BhD (IQ), established in the UK, for annulment of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office's decision which had refused protection in the EU for IQ's figurative sign 'Lumiqs' for which IQ had obtained international registration from the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

Extradition – Extradition crime. The judge had not erred in holding, as required by s 78(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, that the conduct alleged in the extradition request could amount to aiding and abetting offences of murder, affray and firearms offences and that they were all extradition offences. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for her extradition to the United States of America to face trial for ten offences set out in an indictment which contained allegations of murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Tax – Value added tax. The appellant company's appeal against a finding that its supplies of education to students in the United Kingdom were not exempt from VAT succeeded. The Supreme Court held that the scope of Note 1(b) of Item 1 of Group 6 of Sch 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 was not limited to a college, institution, school or hall of an university which was separate from a university but was nevertheless a part of it in a constitutional or structural sense. The appellant's supplies of education to students in the UK were exempt from VAT because it had been and remained a college of Middlesex University.

Damages – Personal injury. The clear disparity in the long-term impact on two drivers, who had been involved in a car accident, was not allowed, in law, to predispose the court on its decision on liability. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled on a claim brought against the defendant for compensation for the brain damage the claimant had sustained in the accident. The court held that a just and equitable apportionment of liability, in circumstances where each party had created a considerable hazard for the other, was 50% in respect of the defendant, and 50% contributory in respect of the claimant.

Judgment – Setting aside. Where it could be shown that a judgment had been obtained by fraud and no allegation of fraud had been raised at the trial, a requirement of reasonable diligence should not be imposed on the party seeking to set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's application to set aside the judgment in her claim against the respondents had potentially met the relevant requirements and she should not be fixed with a further obligation to show that the alleged fraud could not have been discovered before the original trial by reasonable diligence on her part