Judgment call 5th March 2012
The court should order an interim payment if satisfied that the conditions in CPR r.25.7(1)(c) were fulfilled unless there was a specific reason not to do so.
Civil procedure
Brian Nicholson
31 January 2012
The facts that the application for an interim payment was made in the context of a group litigation order and the applicant was not a test claimant did not amount to such reasons.
Appeal dismissed
For the appellant
Pump Court Tax Chambers’ Rupert Baldry QC and James Rivett, instructed directly by the solicitor to HM Revenue & Customs
For the respondent
One Essex Court’s David Cavender QC; Dorsey & Whitney partner Simon Whitehead
Insolvency
Official Receiver v Negus (2011) EWHC 3719 (Ch). Chancery Division. Newey J.
16 December 2011
The fact the sums that would be received by a bankrupt’s estate under an income payments order under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.310 would be unlikely to be sufficient to enable a distribution to unsecured creditors was not a ground for refusing to make the order, nor was it relevant when deciding whether to make such an order.
Appeal allowed
Iain Purvis QC
For the appellant
Blackstone Chambers’ Andreas Gledhill, instructed directly by the Treasury Solicitor
For the respondent
11 Stone Buildings’ Peter Head; SGH Martineau associate Duncan Lockhart
Real estate
A judge had erred in failing to construe a title plan and documents by taking account
of topographical features where the title plan and documents were insufficiently clear
about the position of a disputed boundary. The court also held that to establish a sufficient outward expression of accord to sustain a claim for rectification on the basis of common mistake, there was no evidential requirement to rely upon a particular type of document.
Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed
For the appellant
Hardwicke’s Andrew Skelly; Berrymans Lace Mawer partner Peter Fitzpatrick
For the respondents
Clerksroom’s Alexander Dumbill; JH Powell & Co solicitor Jonathan Hill
David Cavender
Company law
Blight & Ors v Brewster (2012) EWHC 165 (Ch). Chancery Division. G Moss QC.
9 February 2012
There was a strong principle, and a policy of justice, that debtors should not be allowed to hide assets in pension funds when they had a right to withdraw funds needed to pay creditors. In the circumstances, a judgment debtor’s right to take a tax-free lump sum cash payment from a pension fund was a right tantamount to ownership and the court ordered the delegation of that right to creditors’ solicitors under the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37.
Appeal allowed
For the appellants
9 Stone Buildings’ Christopher Spratt; CL Clemo & Co partner James O’Connor
For the respondent
3 Stone Buildings’ James Weale; Crawford Solicitors principal Caroline Crawford
Employment
In an unfair dismissal claim an Employment Tribunal was entitled to scrutinise the employer’s choice of pool from which employees would be selected for redundancy.
Appeal dismissed
For the appellant
Broadway House Chambers’ Paul Wilson; Irwin Mitchell partner Glenn Hayes
For the respondent
3PB Barristers’ Ebony Alleyne; Lyons Davidson solicitor Eleanor Cowen
Human rights
The rights of protesters under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.10 and art.11 were engaged in relation to the maintenance of their camp but they could not persuade an appellate court the judge had been wrong
to order their removal.
Application refused
For the claimant
Landmark Chambers’ David Forsdick and Zoe Leventhal; City of London Corporation City solicitor and comptroller Andrew Colvin
For defendant (1)
25 Bedford Row’s John Cooper QC; Garden Court’s Michael Paget; Kaim Todner partner Karen Todner
IP
The Patents Court revoked a European patent relating to a method of handing over communications between a mobile telephone and a first base station to a second base station on grounds of invalidity. It also ruled on whether various applications to amend the claims were allowable and whether any of those claims were essential to telecommunications standards.
Judgment accordingly
For the claimant
8 New Square’s Michael Tappin QC and Mark Chacksfield; Bird & Bird partner Katherine Stephens
For the defendant
11 South Square’s Iain Purvis QC and Brian Nicholson; Bristows partner Myles Jelf
Health & safety
The court commented on factors for assessing damages to be awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for mesothelioma, and on the lower level figure for awards in the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines 10th edition. Damages of £50,000 were awarded to a claimant based on his symptoms, his short life expectancy and the loss of his independence due to the illness.
Damages assessed
For the claimant
Lincoln House Chambers’ Ivan Bowley; Fentons Solicitors partner Lesley Mynett
For the defendant
Parklane Plowden’s Michael Ditchfield; Nabarro associate Simon Webb
