You are here

Bloomsburry Family law

Law Brief

The claimants set out in Schedule 1 to the Order of the Senior Master dated 17 January 2005 v (1) Tui UK Ltd (2) Thomas Cook Tour Operators (3) Sunstar Leisure Ltd (4) Travel City Direct (5) Cosmosair

The senior costs judge quantified the amount of a costs capping order in respect of the claimants' costs in holiday group litigation on the basis that the litigation was being used to generate excessive and unreasonable costs and that the ability of claimants with modest claims to pursue their claims under the group litigation order came with the concomitant requirement that the costs be strictly controlled.

(1) Aysha Mohammed Murad (2) Layla Mohammed Murad v (1) Hashim Ibrahim Khalil Al-Saraj (2) Westwood Business Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 959

Where a fiduciary had made a profit from inducing the respondents, by his fraudulent representations, to enter into a joint venture to acquire a hotel, the appropriate remedy was that the fiduciary should disgorge all the profits, whether of a revenue or capital nature, subject to any allowances permitted by the court on the taking of the account.

(1) Lambeth London Borough Council (2) Hyde Southbank v O'Kane: Helena Housing Ltd v Pinder [2005] EWCA Civ 1010

In the circumstances where there had been suspended possession orders which had been breached, the breaches had not been waived so as to revive the original tenancy nor had the parties entered into a new tenancy. The fact that a surviving former joint tenant could not apply for a revival of the joint tenancy under the Housing Act 1985, s 85(4) did not lead to the conclusion that a new tenancy had been created by a request for increased rent.

Occidental Exploration & Production Co v Ecuador [2005] EWCA Civ 1116

The principle of non-justiciability did not apply so as to prevent an English court from interpreting the provisions of a Bilateral Investment Treaty in the context of an application by a party to the Treaty to challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitration tribunal. English courts were not wholly precluded from interpreting or having regard to the provisions of unincorporated treaties but the context was always important. The court was to take into account the special character of a bilateral investment treaty and the agreement which it was intended to facilitate.

Vigour Zing Emunefe v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an entry clearance officer had refused an application for a visa, an appeal against that refusal under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s 59 based upon the merits of the claim and on the grounds of alleged acts of discrimination under s 65, had amounted to one appeal. Accordingly, where leave to enter had been granted during the process of the appeal on the grounds that the merits arguments had substance, the appeal, including the discrimination ground, was deemed abandoned by operation of law under s 58(9).