Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Parenthood in cases involving assisted reproduction - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The applicant was successful in her application to be registered as the legal parent of twin children born to her female partner, pursuant to s 55 of the Family Law Act 1986. The Family Division found that the applicant and her partner had jointly embarked upon the fertility treatment with the intention of becoming parents and had believed that they had signed the relevant forms as legally required to make them both the legal parents of the children. Accordingly, the applicant was also granted parental responsibility of the children pursuant to s 4 of the Children Act 1989.

Employment – Restraint of trade. The defendant had breached his duties of fidelity and of confidence to the claimant employer, and of the post-termination restrictions in his employment contract. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division granted the claimant injunctions concerning non-solicit, non-deal and non-compete clauses until the expiry of nine months, but not in respect of confidentiality or springboard.

Contract – Conditional fee agreement. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's appeal and held that the master had been entitled to find that the claimant was liable to pay solicitor's fees, pursuant to two conditional fee agreements that he had signed with his previous solicitors and which had been assigned to the defendant.

Insurance – Contract of insurance. The claimant leaseholder's claim against the defendants, under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, for fire damage caused by the first defendant landlord's negligence, failed almost in its entirety, on the basis that the landlord had not been covered for the relevant damage under the public and products liability section of the insurance policy. However, the Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim, to the extent that an award of £8,500 would be paid to the claimant for costs it had incurred in refurbishing fixtures and fittings that indisputably had not belonged to the landlord.

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. CPR 16.5(1)(b) did not import any duty to make reasonable enquiries of third parties before putting the claimant to proof of an allegation that the defendant was 'unable to admit or deny'. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant company's appeal against a decision dismissing its application to strike out the defendant companies' defence.

Guarantee – Power to grant guarantee. The respondent Corporation of Hamilton's grant of a guarantee to support a loan borrowed by a private developer in connection with the development of a car park was ultra vires and unenforceable, because it was not for a 'municipal purpose' within the true meaning of s 23(1)(f) of the Municipalities Act 1923 of Bermuda. The Privy Council , in dismissing the guarantor's appeal, held that the word 'municipal' in s 23(1)(f) meant that a purpose had to be aimed at the provision, by the Corporation, of a service for the benefit of inhabitants of Hamilton and that the guarantee was not capable of being brought within the scope of the Corporation's powers in that regard.

Employment – Collective Bargaining. On the findings made by the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) of the claimant trade union, the Administrative Court dismissed an application for judicial review and held that the riders of Deliveroos (a well-known food and drinks delivery company) were not 'workers' for the purpose of collective bargaining under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Pension – Pension scheme. The appellants' appeal against decisions concerning the interpretation of a pension scheme in the oil and gas sector failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, among other things, the proper interpretation of a joint operating agreement required the appellants to pay the relevant pensions costs.

Immigration – Asylum. The appellant Iranian national's appeal against the dismissal by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) of her appeal from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), rejecting her challenge to the respondent Secretary of State's decision refusing her asylum claim amounted to no more than a disagreement with the FTT's assessment of the facts. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed her appeal.

Judgment – Default judgment. The phrase 'exceptional circumstances' in the context of r 13.3(2) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 called for something more than a real prospect of success and the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda) had correctly held that the appellant's defence had not constituted exceptional circumstances. The Privy Council further held that the Court of Appeal had not exceeded its jurisdiction or erred in exercising its right to police applications for leave to appeal and to consider whether any proposed appeal raised a genuinely disputable issue.