Private Client analysis: The court was faced with a category 2 and 3 Public Trustee v Cooper application principally for the approval of a momentous decision. The court was initially asked to approve the entirety of a settlement reached between four trustees split into two camps but later asked to approve only the dispositive elements of the settlement. The settlement unusually resolved disputes between the trustees rather than between trustees and beneficiaries or third parties. The court was concerned with mutual allegations of inappropriate action as fiduciaries and the failure of both sides to manage conflicts of interest in arriving at a settlement. After stressing that such factors could impair the decision reached and which the court was asked to approve, the court refused its approval of part of the settlement. Written by James Saunders, barrister, at New Square Chambers.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to give summary judgment against the claimant purchaser in a dispute concerning substantial defects in a residential development. The court did not accept the defendant developer’s arguments that, under the sale and purchase agreement between the claimant and defendant, the defendant was not liable for defects which would be covered by collateral warranties issued by other parties on the project, or that it was only liable for snagging items.

Planning analysis: In Stratton v Enfield LBC, the court declined to exercise its discretion under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) to quash planning permission for a residential extension, but instead used its general discretion not to grant substantive relief in circumstances where to do so would be academic in light of subsequent events, namely the grant of a second permission at the same site. The judgment provides a useful analysis of the principles of SCA 1981, s 31(2A).

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a decision made on paper and without a hearing, Mr Justice Foxton dismissed an application by a non-party to an arbitration award challenge for sections of witness statements filed by one party to be redacted. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed APL Holdco Limited’s petition to wind up a solvent Isle of Man company on the just and equitable ground, despite an admitted breakdown of trust and confidence and functional deadlock. It held that conduct attributable to Holdco was the sole cause of both and that the petitioner lacked clean hands. Holdco had also unreasonably failed to pursue remedies in the Isle of Man. The decision provides important guidance on contributories’ petitions concerning foreign companies, emphasising the court’s guarded approach where the company is solvent and alternative remedies exist in its domestic forum, while clarifying the application of causation and clean-hands principles in quasi-partnership disputes. Produced in partnership with Mark Hubbard of New Square Chambers.

Immigration analysis: This decision, concerning the adoption of a child in Nigeria by a Nigerian national couple resident in the UK under a Tier 2 work visa, provides helpful guidance as to the correct approach for the assessment of the validity of an overseas adoption order. Kathryn Cronin, Barrister at Garden Court Chambers, outlines the detail of the case and elements of it to which lawyers will be giving close attention.

TMT analysis: On an application for strike out and summary judgment, the High Court considered a claim for unjust enrichment in respect of the rights to resurrect an actor, after his death. The court concluded that the nature of the unjust enrichment claim was such that a fuller investigation into the facts was required, and therefore it was not appropriate to determine the case summarily. As the case involves complex and novel points of law, specifically in respect of the application of the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2967 the court held that there were good and compelling reasons to allow the claim to proceed to trial. The decision provides a useful restatement of the principles relating to summary judgment and highlights the fact-sensitive nature of unjust enrichment claims. Written by Jason Raeburn, partner, and Natalie Coulton, associate at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered a Part 8 application brought by a losing party in an adjudication where declarations were sought as to the extent of a Contractor’s design responsibility under a JCT Design & Build Contract. The TCC held that although there was a ‘warranty’ contained within the Employer’s Requirements stating that the design would be developed up to RIBA Stage 4/4(i), this did not negate the contractor’s overall responsibility for design contained in the contract and thus did not entitle the contractor to a variation, time or additional money in completing the design.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) rejected an enforcement challenge to an adjudicator’s decision on the basis that amendments to a standard form contract on how a adjudicator should be selected from a specified panel chosen by the employer contravened the requirements of s 108, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). It was held that there was no evidence of bias on the part of any of the adjudicators named on the employer’s panel nor, on an interpretation of the provisions of HGCRA 1996, s 108, were there grounds to replace the amended provisions in whole or in part with the provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (‘the Scheme’).

Arbitration analysis: Sir Michael Burton in the Commercial Court has dismissed a challenge to a partial final arbitration award made by a tribunal constituted under the FA Premier League rules and has enforced the award. Tony Pulis, the former manager of Crystal Palace football club (CPFC), must pay liquidated damages of £1.5m and a further £2.276m damages for deceit plus interest and costs. His challenge had been brought under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and related firstly to witness evidence which he said the tribunal had ignored and secondly to an alleged failure to consider tax consequences of the award of damages.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) rejected a professional negligence claim brought by a homeowner against an interior designer, finding that the homeowner had not overpaid for the works under the parties’ contract, and that it had failed to establish any entitlement to damages for loss of use of the property, while the project overran.

Local Government analysis: Samuel Genen, solicitor at Steel & Shamash, comments on the case of R v D where the Court of Appeal ruled that a failure to notify the local council of a change of address for the purpose of council tax did not constitute a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006).