Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. An application for, essentially, the staying of an obligation to provide disclosure in the context of a freezing order, pending the future determination of an application concerning a possible distribution of funds from a trust to an individual against whom the freezing order had been made (Mrs A), was not one to which the court could accede. The Commercial Court, in dismissing Mrs A's application for more time to give further disclosure of assets, applied the principle that an unresolved application to discharge a freezing order was no reason to excuse or delay full compliance with orders as to disclosure of assets that had otherwise been determined to be proper in the circumstances of the case.

Confidential information – Disclosure. The first and second claimant companies and the third claimant individual's application for an order for source disclosure against the defendant newspaper would not be allowed on the basis that the defendant had made concessions and an undertaking to formalise those by amendments to the defence. However, the Queen's Bench Division, did not dismiss the application. It held that it would keep the issue under review in the light of developments in the case.

Damages – Personal. Both the judge and the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas had erred in their application of the UK Government Actuary's Department, Actuarial Tables for use in Personal Injury and Fatal Accident Cases, 7th ed (2011) (the Ogden tables) and, as a result, had made an entirely erroneous estimate of the appropriate level of damages. Accordingly, the Privy Council advised Her Majesty that the appellant's appeal should be allowed, the award of $93,238.96 in respect of loss of future earnings quashed and an award of $650,043.21 substituted against the respondents.

Employment – Discrimination. The employment tribunal (ET) had not erred in the way that it had approached the burden of proof in relation to the direct race discrimination claim brought by the respondent employee against the appellant employer. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employer's appeal against the decision of the employment appeal tribunal and restored the finding of the ET, that there had been no direct discrimination against the employee with respect to recruitment to any of the relevant posts.

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The appellant's appeal against a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) was dismissed. The proceedings concerned an agreement by which the appellant had agreed to subscribe to an online portal for estate agents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the CAT had not erred in finding that the rules of the portal had not infringed competition law.

Bank – Regulation of financial services. Santander UK plc and Abbey National Treasury Services plc succeeded in their application to the court for the sanction of a ring-fencing transfer scheme, under Pt VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Chancery Division held that, in all the circumstances, and in line with the answers given by the skilled person to the statutory question and the assessment of the Regulators, there was no reason to refuse sanction of the scheme.

Housing – Local authority. In enforcing a possession order against the appellant tenant, the respondent council landlord had complied with its duty at the relevant times in relation to s 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the tenant's appeal against an order whereby the judge dismissed the tenant's appeal from an order refusing his application to suspend a warrant for possession.

Extradition – Proportionality. The European arrest warrant seeking the return of the appellant to stand trial for supplying drugs and handling stolen goods, together with the service of a prison sentence of two years for interference with and damage to motor vehicles was valid and proportionate. However, the Administrative Court held that an accusation warrant for supplying cannabis was just disproportionate, even with the other offences and allowed the appellant's appeal to that extent.

Passport – United Kingdom passport. While the issue of a previous passport was powerful evidence and might sometimes be determinative, the questions on whether the claimant had been entitled to be issued with the previous passport and whether she was the person to whom it had been issued had to be investigated. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's claim, further held that the defendant Secretary of State's policy on use and change of names had not been rigidly applied.

Extradition – Delay. The judge's approach to delay had been perfectly proper and the fundamental problem was that the appellant was a fugitive. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve an activated suspended sentence of one year and four months for driving with excess alcohol.