Latest Cases

Contract – Duty of care. It was well established that the Quincecare duty of care was a duty on a bank to refrain from executing a customer's order if, and for so long as, the bank was 'put on inquiry' in the sense that the bank had reasonable grounds for believing, assessed according to the standards of an ordinary prudent banker, that the order was an attempt to defraud the customer. Applying that principle, the Commercial Court held, among other things, that the application of the defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., for reverse summary judgment against the claimant Federal Republic of Nigeria, under CPR 24.2, failed. On the correct interpretation of the depository agreement at issue, that Quincecare duty of care was neither inconsistent with, nor excluded by, the terms of that agreement.

Family Proceedings – Child. In a case where the father had repeatedly refused to reveal the location in Egypt of a child X and the mother had a custody order from the Egyptian Courts, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the time had come for the court to respectfully, but formally, ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to use all available diplomatic measures to seek to persuade the authorities in Egypt to locate X.

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The lease entered into by the defendant European Medicines Agency (the EMA) with the claimants would not be frustrated on the UK's withdrawal from the EU, as it was neither a case of frustration by supervening illegality nor one of frustration of common purpose. The Chancery Division further rejected the EMA's arguments that it would not have legal capacity to act in relation to the lease and that a self-standing rule of EU law served to absolve it of its obligations post-Brexit.

Contract – Termination. The claimant investment company had entered into collateralised hedge transactions with the defendant companies using the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement. Those transactions were terminated on the insolvency of the claimant. The Chancery Division held that, on termination, the defendants' loss calculation had not been in accordance with the close-out provisions of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as incorporated into the transactions, and was not binding on claimant. Further, if the defendants had determined their loss in accordance with the contracts, they would have arrived at an aggregate figure of €22.84m.

Immigration – Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had jurisdiction to correct an error in its decision if it was a mere error of expression. However, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that in the particular circumstances of the case, it would not be right for it to exercise that jurisdiction, as it would not be possible to exclude a real perception of unfairness if the UT were simply to produce a corrected version of the decision that faithfully reflected the figures that it had been given by the Secretary of State.

Tort – Cause of action. The claim of the claimant company (SB) succeeded in part, in proceedings concerning allegations that the defendant company (M) had tortiously induced or procured breaches of SB's contracts with a third party. The claim that any of the contracts had been entered into tortiously in the first place, as far as M was concerned, would be rejected. However, the Commercial Court held that M had committed the tort of inducement subsequently, when it had been put on notice of the SB contracts by direct communications from SB.

Health and safety at work – Employer's duties. On hearing the appeal by Squibb Group Ltd against its conviction for failing to comply with its duty under s 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appellant's grounds of appeal were not made out. However, the court held that in imposing the fine of £400,000, the judge had wrongly taken the relevant harm category to be category 2 which had a higher starting point, instead of harm category 3. Making a broadly similar adjustment from the starting point of £210,000 which the judge should have taken, the court varied the sentence by imposing a fine of £190,000.

European Union – Freedom of movement. The standstill clause in art 64(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as meaning that art 63(1) TFEU did not prejudice the application of a restriction on movements of capital to or from third countries involving direct investment which had existed, in its essence, on 31 December 1993 in the legislation of a member state, although the scope of the restriction had been extended, after that date, to include shareholdings which did not involve direct investment. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in proceedings regarding the incorporation of the income obtained by a company incorporated under Swiss law which was partly owned by the applicant company which was incorporated under German law, into the latter's tax base.

Health and safety at work – Fine. NPS London Ltd appealed against a fine of £370,000, which had been imposed following its guilty plea to an offence of failing to comply with its duty under s 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had erred in reading the sentencing guidelines as entitling him to treat NPS London Ltd as if it were a large organisation, for the purpose of sentencing. It ruled that it was the offending organisation's turnover, and not that of any linked organisation, which, at step two of the guidelines, was to be used to identify the relevant table. Accordingly, on the facts, the judge should have used the table that applied to small organisations. However, the court held that it had been proper to regard the NPS London Ltd's parent company as a linked organisation which could be counted on to provide the required funds. Taking account of the mitigating circumstances, the fine was reduced to £50,000.

Human rights – Right to life. The applicant (GF) was the wife of a solicitor (PF) murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. It was suspected that elements of the British security services had been involved in the killing. GF's application for judicial review succeeded in part. The Supreme Court held that there was no sustainable evidence that the process by which the decision not to hold a public inquiry into PF's death had been taken had been a sham or that the outcome had been predetermined. Further, there had not been an inquiry compliant with art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights into the death of PF. However, it did not follow that a public inquiry of the type which GF sought had to be ordered.