Cases by Area of Law

AA v TT [2014] EWHC 3488 (Fam)

[2014] EWHC 3488 (Fam)

Barrister: Edward Bennett
Area of Law: Family
Summary: This is the only case under the 1980 European Convention where the English court has refused to recognise a foreign custody order on the grounds that to do so would be manifestly incompatible with a principle of English family law.

Bradley v Heslin

[2014] EWHC 3267; [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Oct)

Barrister: Christopher Jones
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: Christopher was instructed by Portland Legal Services to act on behalf of the defendants, in a three day trial before Mr Justice Norris sitting in the Chancery Division in Liverpool. This is a significant case as it confirmed that a right to hang a gate over land forming a driveway was capable of being an easement that accommodated the dominant tenement.

Re R (A Child) [2014] EWHC 2802 (Fam)

[2014] EWHC 2802 (Fam)

Barrister: Edward Bennett
Area of Law: Family
Summary: This was the first UK-Japan case under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

R v CN Ltd

Barrister: Simon Morgan
Area of Law: Regulatory and Disciplinary
Summary: Defence of the company and director arising out of the death on an employee consequent upon the explosion of a pressure vessel used as part of a heating system.
View press coverage here:

Coventry University v Mian

[2014] EWCA Civ 1275

Barrister: Andrew McLaughlin 
Area of Law:
 Industrial Disease
Summary: Andrew successfully represents the defendant in the Court of Appeal in the work-related stress case of Coventry University v Mian [2014] EWCA Civ 1275Andrew was instructed by Matthew Harrington of BLM solicitors Cardiff on behalf of QBE Insurance in this successful appeal against a decision of HHJ Barrie that the university was liable to Dr Mian, a senior lecturer, for work-related stress.

Download judgment: Coventry University v Mian
View news article: Andrew McLaughlin successfully represents the defendant in the Court of Appeal in work-related stress case

Kellie v Wheatley & Lloyd

[2014] EWHC 2212 (TCC); [2014] EWHC 2886 (TCC)

Barrister: Alex Troup
Area of Law: Professional Negligence
Summary: Professional negligence claim against an architect and associated costs decision concerning indemnity costs.

Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc

[2014] WLR (D)  369; The Times, 28th August 2014

Barrister: Guy Adams
Area of Law: Banking and Commercial Dispute Resolution

Summary: Guy appeared in the Court of Appeal in this important case, which is the first case concerning misdirected CHAPS transfers. The claimant was subject to a common fraud in which the fraudster impersonated one of its suppliers and provided it with false bank details for the payment of an outstanding invoice.  The claimant filled in a form of instruction for a CHAPS payment naming the correct beneficiary but using the wrong sort code and account number.  The claimant’s bank initiated the transfer and Barclays Bank plc purported to accept the payment even though the account with that account number was held by someone completely different and the defendant made a debit entry on the claimant’s account. The claimant claimed and sought summary judgment on the basis that, as no payment had been made to its supplier, who did not even bank with Barclays Bank plc, its account should be restated. At first instance HHJ Havelock-Allan QC held on a cross summary judgment application that on the true construction of the form of instruction that the claimant had authorised its bank to pay whoever held the account and the information as to the identity of the beneficiary was irrelevant.  The bank had therefore fulfilled its instructions and was entitled to debit the claimant’s account. Lewison LJ gave permission to appeal on paper because the point is of general application and a decision of the Court of Appeal was needed.  The appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeal by a majority.  The leading judgment was given by the Master of the Rolls with a strong dissent from Floyd LJ.  Tomlinson LJ found himself “in the invidious position of having to choose between them” and by the end of the hearing “was more or less persuaded that that instruction should be construed as Floyd LJ has done”, he ultimately however agreed with the Master of the Rolls’ conclusion albeit for different reasons.  Tidal are seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

View the report in the Times: CHAPS transfers depend on sort code and account 
Download the full judgment: Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc [2014] WLR (D) 369

Scriveners v Imison

Barrister: Martha Maher
Area of Law: Company / Insolvency
Summary: Martha was instructed by Dominic Holden of Ashfords’ London office, to act for the Incorporated Company of Scriveners in a successful disciplinary action before the Court of Faculties against Ella Imison, Scrivener Notary. This case arises out of the collapse of companies in the Insight Group including Insight Commodities Limited which went into insolvent liquidation following a public interest winding up petition before the High Court. The case concerned the professional’s part in an alleged boiler room fraud involving  the sale of so-called agri-commodities investments  in a number of  jurisdictions with significant loss to investors. The case also raised issues concerning observance by professionals of the Money Laundering Regulations. This judgment has been published on the Faculty Office’s website.

Download judgment: Scriveners v Imison

N McM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(DLA) [2014] UKUT 0312 (AAC)

Barrister: Charlie Newington-Bridges
Area of Law: Commercial and Chancery
Summary: Charlie was successful in this appeal against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The appeal concerned the meaning of the words ‘severe mental impairment’ and ‘incomplete development of the brain’ under the Social Security and Contributions Act 1992 and associated regulations. The Upper Tribunal found in favour for appellant on new medical evidence and the correct interpretation of the statute and regulations in light of that evidence. The decision refers to Charlie’s able representation and wise tactical decisions.

Q v Q, Re B (A Child), Re C (A Child)

 [2014] EWFC 31 (06 August 2014)

Barrister: Judi Evans
Area of Law: Children
Summary: This was a combined judgment on three cases, Judi acted for the Father in Re B. Following the Judgment in January 2014 the funding issues had not been resolved and the matter went before the President. Although funding had been granted to the Father in Re B by the time of the hearing (following the issue of JR proceedings against the LAA), the father in Re C remained in person. The President issued a combined judgment dealing with the court’s duty to ensure proceedings were article 6 compliant, which meant that if all else failed and there would otherwise be an article 6 breach HMCTS would have to pay for representation to comply with its statutory duties under s31G(6) Matrimonial & Family Proceedings Act 1984 as amended by the Crime & Courts Act 2013 and the Human Rights Act 1998.