Latest Cases

Practice – Order. The Queen's Bench Division found that the high threshold for a debarring order had not been met in circumstances where the defendant could still be given the opportunity to comply with a tight, but achievable, timetable for providing full disclosure, and the trial fixture had not yet been lost.

Practice – Pre-trial or post judgment relief. In dismissing the claimant's appeal against a decision that the court had no jurisdiction to try the claimant's claim against the third and fourth defendants, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, discussed and clarified the test to be applied on an application to set aside jurisdiction. The appeal focused on the substantive meaning of the phrases 'good arguable case' and 'much the better argument' and as to the approach that courts should adopt when applying those tests.

Loan – Deceit. Certain defendants succeeded in their application to, among other things, set aside orders granting the claimant bank permission to serve its claim on them out of the jurisdiction, and by alternative means. The bank's claim alleged, among other things, fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit in respect of eight loans, totalling $45m, concerning oil re-refining and wind energy generating projects in the USA. The Chancery Division ruled that the claims in deceit and misrepresentation did not demonstrate a serious issue to be tried in relation to the relevant cause or causes of action and that the particulars of claim failed to meet the essential minimum requirements. Further, the court ruled that the orders giving permission to serve out of the jurisdiction should be set aside for material non-disclosure where the bank had failed, at the relevant time, to disclose to the court the existence of foreign proceedings.

Immigration – Detention. In a false imprisonment claim, arising from the detention of the first respondent mother and the second respondent son, pending removal from the UK, the judge had erred in, among other things, a paucity of relevant findings of fact. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division allowed the appeal by the appellant Home Office against the judge's decision to award damages to the respondents, and also allowed the respondents' cross-appeal against the decision that the whole of the mother's detention had not been unlawful.

Contract – Breach. The claimant was successful in its claim against the defendants for the tort of conversion, but unsuccessful in its claim for breach of contract. The Queen's Bench Division held that while the defendants had stolen the claimant's stock to complete two installations, they had not used the claimant's confidential information in completing said installations. Further, the second defendant was successful in its counterclaim against the claimant for unpaid invoices.

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. There had been a violation of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the police's retention of the applicant's data, as there was no pressing need for it. The European Court of Human Rights held that there were reasons to substitute its own assessment of the for that of the competent national authorities, including the absence of effective safeguards where the personal data revealed political opinions which attracted a heightened level of protection.

Criminal law – Obstruction of highway. The judge, in dismissing charges of obstruction of the highway against the respondents, had fallen into error in his approach to the assessment of proportionality and his overall assessment of proportionality had been wrong. Accordingly, the Divisional Court allowed the Director of Public Prosecution's appeal by way of case stated against the first four respondents, but dismissed it in respect of the fifth to eight respondents, as the application to state a case had been out of time, such that the judge had had no jurisdiction to state a case.

Company – Breach of contract. The Commercial Court considered the issue of whether two sets of claims were matters relating to the employment of the defendant by the relevant claimants for the purpose of s 5 of the Lugano Convention (the Convention). The court held that all of the claims were matters relating to individual contracts of employment within art 18 of the Convention. Subject to further discussion, there would be a declaration in the first claim that the court had no jurisdiction, and an order setting aside service of that claim on each of the defendants. Submissions would be invited as to whether relief should be granted regarding the second claim.

Director of company – Disqualification application. Where the Secretary of State relied upon the new three-year limitation period in relation to a company which had become insolvent after 1 October 2015, when the limitation period in s 108 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 increased from two years, the Secretary of State was not confined to relying solely upon conduct which had taken place on or after 1 October 2015. The County Court held that s 108 had no bearing at all on the date of conduct.

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court considered the applicants' application for an order varying interim charging orders on two properties, to prevent dealing with them, including letting them on tenancies. An order would be made that each of the relevant freezing orders would be varied so as to include a provision that nothing in the orders would restrict the relevant applicant from granting a tenancy over the respective property for a term not to exceed 24 months and otherwise on terms agreed by the claimants or, in default of agreement, approved by the court.