Latest Cases

Probate – Wills. The judge, refusing to exercise power under s 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 to permit the appellant to commence proceedings under s 2 to challenge the distribution of her late husband's estate, had erred in applying a robust approach and holding that the court had to be satisfied that the claim was arguable and there were good reasons justifying the delay. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, when determining whether a claim should be brought outside the six-month period, the court had to consider all of the relevant circumstances of the case and it was necessary to decide whether the applicant's claim had a real prospect of success rather than a fanciful one, and if the claim had no real prospect of success; the court would not entertain a claim with no merit which was commenced outside the six-month time limit merely because the delays could not be explained and no one was prejudiced.

Libel and slander – Identification of claimant as person defamed. The Privy Council held that for two statements made by the same person, but published at different times, to be aggregated for the purpose of giving rise in conjunction to a completed cause of action in defamation, in the mind of the reasonable reader there had to be created a sufficient nexus, connection or association between the two of them, so that (where one was defamatory and the other identified the subject) there came a moment in time at which, in the mind of that reader, the claimant was identified as the subject of the defamatory accusation.

Practice – Adjournment of proceedings. None of the orders made in the claimant's favour on its applications for further disclosure and to amendment its particulars of claim provided any ground to support its adjournment application. The Commercial Court further held that there were no other sufficiently compelling reasons to order the adjournment of that trial date and dismissed the adjournment application.

Sentence – Murder. The sentence of imprisonment for life, with a minimum term of 20 years, less days spent on remand, imposed on the defendant for murder had been severe, but not manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that account was taken of the mitigating features, but they had been limited and wholly insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the aggravating features.

Damages – Accident. The injury sustained by the claimant while disembarking from the airline was an 'accident' within the meaning of the art 17(1) of the Montreal Convention 1999. The Queen's Bench Division, held, that the claimant was entitled to general damages related to the pain, suffering and loss of amenity as a result of the shoulder, pelvic and knees injuries he sustained, in the sum of £39,250.

Contract – Construction. In determining whether the respondents were liable to pay tax following the sale by them of the second appellant company to the first appellant, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division held, agreeing with the trial judge, that as no notice of a Tax Claim had been made within 7 years of the completion date of the sale, such a claim was therefore barred and that the respondents were entitled to summary judgment on the issue.

Trade union – Certification as independent trade union. The respondent Certification Officer had correctly rejected the appellant trade union's application to be entered on to the list of Trade Unions maintained by the respondent. The applicant was not an organisation consisting 'wholly or mainly of workers' within the meaning of s 1 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992: a 'worker', for those purposes, being an individual who worked under a contract. Consequently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the employment tribunal's decision to uphold the respondent's decision.

Immigration – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) had been unclear on what basis the adjudicator had made findings that the respondent had tortured and killed people as part of the Taliban and the UT had been entitled to depart from those findings and make its own assessment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Secretary of State's appeal against the UT's decision allow the respondent's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to cancel his indefinite leave to remain.

Extradition – Private and family life. Even if fresh evidence concerning the serious and enduring mental health problems of the appellant's partner and the special needs of the couple's young daughter had been admitted, the factors in the appellant's favour fell a good way short of outweighing the factors which favoured extradition. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision to order his extradition to Poland to serve the remaining 2 years, 5 months, 28 days of a sentence of 2 years, 6 months' imprisonment for ten criminal damage offences.

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The applicant company's application for sanction of a transfer scheme was allowed. The Chancery Division held that the jurisdictional threshold had been crossed and accordingly, the approved scheme fell to be considered for sanction. Having considered the applicable legal principles and the relevant issues, the court decided that although the opposition to the scheme by a minority shareholder had some weight and merit, the scheme should be sanctioned and there was no ground upon which sanction of the scheme could be withheld on discretionary grounds.