Latest Cases

Probate – Grant. The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court had correctly decided that the marriage contract relating to the testator's second marriage had not prevented the testator from bequeathing his property by testamentary disposition. The Privy Council so held, among other things, in dismissing the appellant daughter's appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. The Board considered the relevant provisions of the superseded Civil Code of St Lucia of 1879, relating to dower and the effect of a contract of marriage on the ability of a husband to dispose of property by testamentary disposition.

Practice – Procedure. For applications such as those under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 and other applications which were heard in the Family Division, but were subject to the CPR, the parties should comply with FPR PD 27A in the preparation of bundles for hearings taking place in the High Court. The Family Division so ruled in the course of an application under I(PFD) 1975, in circumstances where the claimant's solicitors had lodged a bundle of documents which did not contain a case summary, a chronology, a list of issues or a list of essential reading.

Unfair dismissal – Remedies. When ss 115 and 117 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were read together, an 'order for re-engagement' was not intended to impose an absolute and indefeasible obligation on the employer to re-engage the employee or a correlative right in the employee to be re-engaged. Rather, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held it created a situation in which the employer had to either re-engage the employee or become liable for the awards specified by s 117 (3), which included an additional award on top of what it would have had to pay if no re-engagement order had been made.

Statute – Interpretation. For the purpose of s 177 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 2000, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could say that it was 'the person imposing the requirement' when the requirement had been imposed by an investigator acting 'on its behalf'. In so deciding, the Chancery Division, ruled that the respondent company had to pay the costs of the FCA.

Immigration – Identity. The claimant, who came to the UK from Bangladesh, had produced sufficient evidence to prove that he had been born after his father had been registered in 1974 as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, accordingly held that he was thus entitled to British citizenship.

Transport – Licence. A Senior Traffic Controller decided that a bus company and its managing director had lost their good repute and should be disqualified from holding a vehicle operator's licence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), in dismissing the appeal against that decision, had been correct to take into account a video, commissioned by the company's managing director and uploaded onto YouTube, which showed the Senior Traffic Controller driving her car in a private capacity together with captions accusing her of hypocrisy.

Employment – Disability. The appellant Constabulary declined the respondent police officer's application to transfer to it on the basis that she suffered from an unacceptable level of hearing loss. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Employment Tribunal had been correct to find that that decision had amounted to discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability.

European Union – Consumer protection. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, read in the light of recitals 14 and 25 thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which had led to its closure and, consequently, the long delay of a flight to or from that airport, fell within the concept of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that provision, when the petrol in question did not originate from an aircraft of the carrier that had operated that flight. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings between the applicant passenger and Ryanair Ltd, concerning the latter's refusal to compensate that passenger for a long delay to his flight.

Disclosure – Disclosure of documents. The claimants' case against the defendant private investigators succeeded, in an action concerning the disclosure of information. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the defendants had breached their obligations of confidentiality in making disclosures to an investigative journalist and to a firm of Cypriot lawyers, and the disclosures had not been in the public interest.

Property – Resulting trust. A judge had not erred in holding, among other things, that the respondent held a 100% beneficial interest in a residential property in Luton (the property), the legal title to which was held by the appellant. The respondent had successfully contended before the judge that it had been agreed between the parties that the appellant would secure the mortgage to purchase the property on the respondent's behalf, and that the latter would pay the deposit and meet the monthly mortgage payments. The respondent had made payments towards the mortgage and he had resided in the property with his family since its purchase. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that there was no basis on which the judge's primary findings of fact could be disturbed, and that he had clearly found that there was a resulting trust, notwithstanding he had not used that term, and that the agreement was that the entire beneficial interest was to be respondent's. The court further held that the appellant's agreement to incur the liability of the mortgage was not sufficient, in itself, to confer on him any beneficial interest in the property.