Latest Cases

Damages – Breach of contract/ professional negligence – Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Court of Session: Dismissing an action for breach of contract and professional negligence in which the pursuer sought to recover from his accountant his loss of earnings resulting from a sanction imposed on him by the Financial Services Authority, withdrawing his authority to perform certain functions, the court upheld the defender's plea that the pursuer was precluded from recovering damages from him by reason of public policy, concluding that the brocard ex turpi causa non oritur actio applied to the case.

European Union – Freedom to provide services. Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 had to be interpreted as meaning that a debtor who had entered into a credit agreement in order to have renovation work carried out in an immovable property which was his domicile with the intention, in particular, of providing tourist accommodation services could not be regarded as a 'consumer' within the meaning of that provision, unless, in the light of the context of the transaction, regarded as a whole, for which the contract had been concluded, that contract had such a tenuous link to that professional activity that it appeared clear that the contract was essentially for private purposes, which was a matter for the referring court to ascertain. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings between the parties concerning an action for a declaration of invalidity of a credit agreement and of a notarised deed related to the creation of a mortgage taken out to guarantee the debt arising out of that contract and the removal of that security from the land register.

Child – Child abduction. The father's application for an order requiring the return of his child (E) to Spain, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention), was dismissed. The Family Division held that E had been habitually resident in Spain at the relevant time. However, it held, in favour of the mother, that the defence under art 13(b) of the Hague Convention had been made out, namely that there was a grave risk that E's return to Spain would expose her to physical and psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation. Further, among other things, the court held that none of the protective measures proposed by the father were sufficient to obviate such a risk, and that, where no response had been received from the Spanish authority concerning the situation E would face if the court decided to return her to public care in Spain, that protective measure was not practically available to the court. Accordingly, the court declined to exercise its residual discretion to return E to Spain.

Housing – Homeless person. It was accepted that the statutory jurisdiction exercised by a County Court under the Housing Act 1996 did not permit the County Court to reach its own decisions about the facts concerning an application for homelessness assistance and that to do so would be in excess of its statutory jurisdiction. It followed that the County Court had no jurisdiction in a statutory homelessness appeal from the respondent authority's reviewing officer, to determine issues of fact, or make findings of fact, that were a prerequisite to a finding of unlawful jurisdiction under ss 15 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010. Accordingly, the County Court judge allowed the authority's application to strike out parts of the appellant's amended grounds of appeal.

Company – Director. The claimant administrators' claim against the first defendant company director (N) succeeded in part. The Chancery Division held that N had been content to enhance the fees obtained from insolvency cases by entering into agreements with third party service providers as a means of enhancing the fees received. He had acted in dishonest breach of his duties as a supervisor, and had been in negligent (but not dishonest) breach of his duties as a director of the company in relation to the manner in which he supervised the company's accounting.

Practice – Service. A person, such as the driver of the car involved in the accident with the respondent, who was not just anonymous, but could not be identified with any particular person, could not be sued under a pseudonym or description, unless the circumstances were such that the service of the claim form could be effected or properly dispensed with. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had erred in allowing the respondent permission to amend the claim form so as to sue an unnamed defendant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant insurer's appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal, and reinstated the district judge's order.

Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state. The applicant sought among other things, a declaration that the Government of National Accord (the GNA) and its Presidency Council (the PC) had validly appointed him chairman of the Libyan Investment Authority (the LIA). The Chancery Division, in determining two preliminary issues, held that the question of which body represented or had at any material time represented the executive authority and Government of Libya fell to be determined, if it arose before the court, under English law. Further, that the executive authority and Government of Libya was, and had been since at least 19 April 2017, represented by the GNA and the PC.

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant's claim for judicial review of the defendant local housing authority's failure to conduct a statutory review of whether her accommodation was suitable fell to be dismissed, as the claimant had not had a right to a review, since the application for a review had been made outside the statutory time limit. The Administrative Court held that it followed that the authority had not been required to carry out a review.

Practice – Adjournment of proceedings. The claimant bank's appeal against an order of the Insolvency and Companies Court succeeded. The Chancery Division held that the judge had erred in ordering an adjournment of the bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant. While the judge had been entitled to adjourn his decision, having heard full argument on the merits, and to ask for further submissions from counsel on unclear legal points, he should have, as a matter of principle, disposed of the bank's petition first.

European Union – Trade marks. The Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (the Board) had failed to take into account all aspects of the situation of the applicant company, established in the UK, so that in appraising the interests of that company the Board had not looked at the whole picture and had not properly weighed the various interests involved. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union held that the Board's refusal to suspend the applicant's appeal proceedings in relation to opposition proceedings between the applicant and the intervener company regarding the applicant's application to register a figurative sign 'ALTUS' as an EU trade mark, was vitiated by an error of law and by manifest errors of assessment. Accordingly, the Board's decision was annulled.