Practice Settlement of action. The Queen's Bench Division granted the parties' application for approval of their settlement of the claimant's, PJS, proceedings against the defendant newspaper for breach of confidence and misuse of private information. The terms of the settlement included an order that the defendant pay a specified sum in full and final settlement of PJS's claim for damages, and for the anonymity of PJS, his partner and three designated third parties.
Public procurement Public contracts. The Technology and Construction Court lifted an automatic suspension that had been imposed on the award of a contract concerning a new web-based system to be used across the NHS where the claimant, a failed bidder in the tendering process, and a 'not for profit' organisation, had an adequate remedy in damages and where it was just that the claimant should be confined to that remedy.
Divorce Financial provision. The Family Division held that a husband (H) who had successfully applied to set aside a consent order in divorce proceedings, on the grounds of the wife's (W) material non-disclosure, was entitled to 50% of his costs of that application, to be assessed on an indemnity basis. In the circumstances, both parties' conduct justified that award, which included a substantial discount on the grounds that no findings of fraud had been made against W; she had made a sensible offer to settle some two years before the matter concluded; and, in the course of proceedings, H had leaked confidential information about the case to the national press.
Court of Protection Practice. Following its previous judgment in which a civil restraint order had been made against the respondent, the Court of Protection dealt with matters remaining, including finalisation of outstanding orders, publication of the judgment and any application for permission.
Contempt of court Civil contempt. The Court of Protection considered, among other things, an application for the committal for 27 contempts of a solicitor and the firm of which she was a member, which were brought by F, who was the applicant nephew of a person whose affairs had been managed by the court. The court held that F's applications had not been made properly, that it would not extend its discretion to consider them and that they were entirely without merit. It further ordered that an extended civil restraint order would be made against F for two years with regard to the relevant proceedings.
Costs Bankruptcy order. The Chancery Division ruled that it was permissible to order that the claimant debtor (the debtor), who had unsuccessfully appealed against a bankruptcy order, had to pay the defendant petitioning creditor's costs. Rule 12.2 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, , did not provide that recovery in accordance with that rule should be the only means by which costs should be recovered. The petitioner had invited the court to make an order within its power under r 7.51A of the Rules and CPR 44 that costs of the appeal should fall on the debtor. The debtor had made himself subject to that regime by appealing. The costs of the appeal did not constitute an expense of the bankruptcy or a provable debt. Accordingly, the debtor was ordered to pay the costs of his unsuccessful appeal. The court held that, to the extent that the costs were not paid by the debtor, they might be treated as an expense of the bankruptcy.
Company Administration. The Companies Court held that the appointment of additional administrators, appointed concurrently with existing administrators of BHS Ltd, was in the best interests of creditors, as it would enable an investigation into possible claims the company might be entitled to bring against former and current directors of the company in the most timely and efficient manner.
Insolvency Statutory demand. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against the setting aside of a statutory demand. The payment of a guarantee, sought by the demand, would not have been in breach of freezing orders imposed by way of sanctions against Libya under United Nations Security Council Resolutions or the European Regulations adopted to give those Resolutions effect in Europe.
Deutsche Bahn AG and others v MasterCard Incorporated and other companies; Peugeot Citroën Automobiles UK Ltd and others v Pilkington Group Ltd and other companies
Competition Limitation. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that, where proceedings under of the Competition Act 1998 were governed by foreign law, the provisions of the were applicable so that the foreign law rules of limitation ordinarily applied.
*Bahamas Oil Refining Company International Ltd v Owners of the Cape Bari Tankschiffahrts GMBH & Co KG (Bahamas)
Shipping Limitation of liability. The Privy Council advised that it was permissible for the owner of a vessel to contract out of or waive their statutory right of limitation under the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Claims Limitation of Liability) Act 1989 of the Bahamas and the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976. In the present appeal, on the true construction of an agreement between the parties, the respondents had not contracted out of that Act and Convention.