*Khans Solicitor (a firm) v Chifuntwe and another

Solicitor Costs. The claimant law firm had been instructed by Chama Chifuntwe to issue judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Home Office. Proceedings were compromised and the Secretary of State agreed to pay Mr Chifuntwe's costs. He had paid his solicitor 1,500 on account of costs, whereas the bill of costs was 9,500. The Secretary of State offered 6,000 in settlement. Mr Chifuntwe wrote directly to the Secretary of State stating that he had withdrawn instructions from his solicitor and accepted the settlement offer, asking that the money be sent directly to him. The solicitor contacted the Secretary of State to tell her not to pay the money directly to Mr Chifuntwe as he was trying to avoid paying his bill. The Secretary of State paid 6,000 to Mr Chifuntwe, who promptly disappeared without paying his solicitor. The solicitor's application for payment by the Secretary of State under CPRPt8 was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal in part, holding that Mr Chifuntwe's acceptance of the settlement figure had been binding but, as the Secretary of State had been on notice of the claim against Mr Chifuntwe, the payment made to him had not been a good discharge of the claim. The Secretary of State was ordered to pay the solicitor 4,500.

Kingsway Shipping Co Ltd v STX Gulf Shipping DMCCO

Practice Summary judgment. The claimant was the head owner of a vessel which was grounded in Saudi Arabia. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant sub-charterer pursuant to a purported guarantee sent by the sub-charterer to a master. The claimant applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court held that the defendant had been concerned with its own right to have a larger quantity of cargo loaded. By giving the guarantee, the defendant had resolved a dispute with the immediate charter, not with the head owners. Accordingly, the application for summary judgment was dismissed and the claim had to fail.

X v Y

Shipping Contract of affreightment. The parties were engaged in a long running dispute arising out of a contract of affreightment. In London arbitration, X had been adjudged liable to pay several millions of dollars to Y. X had paid nothing but had sought to challenge the fourth award pursuant to ss67 and 68 of the . The Commercial Court allowed Y's application for security for costs but refused its application for payment in in respect of X's challenges.

*HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc; Apple Inc v HTC Europe Co Ltd

Patent Infringement. Apple Inc had issued proceedings against HTC Europe Co Ltd alleging infringement of its patents that related to multi-touch sensitivity of touch screens and 'swipe to unlock' mechanisms for smartphones. HTC challenged the validity of those patents. The judge found that, in certain specified respects, various claims of each patent were invalid for being a computer program and for obviousness. Apple appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed part of the appeal, finding that the patents were not in respect of computer programs as such for the purposes of s1(2) of the .

*R (on the application of William Hill Organisation Ltd and another) v Horserace Betting Levy Board and others

Gaming Betting. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a decision dismissing the claimant bookmaker's application for judicial review of the defendant board's decision that business users of betting exchanges were not required to pay the horse race betting levy as they were not bookmakers. Those who used a betting exchange did not receive or negotiate bets within the meaning of s55 of the .

Standard Bank plc v Via Mat International Ltd and another

Practice Summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the claimant bank's appeal against an order giving summary judgment for the first defendant and setting aside service of the claim form and particulars of claim against the second defendant. In proceedings which arose out of the storage of silver in China by the second defendant, the court found that many aspects of the matter remained obscure and held that the position was not clear enough to say that the claim had no real prospect of success.

Canterbury City Council v Knight

Costs Appeal. The appellant local authority appealed against cost orders. The parties indicated the likelihood of consent orders, but failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal as utterly hopeless.

OM Property Management Ltd v Burr

Landlord and tenant Service Charge. The claimant was the leaseholder of a flat in a development. The defendant management company discovered that the gas for a swimming pool in the development was being provided by T instead of E when T issued an invoice for payment. The defendant included a charge in respect of the gas cost in the claimant's service charge. The claimant commenced proceedings challenging that charge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal and held that the gas cost had not been incurred for the purposes of s20B of the until it had been paid or an invoice had been presented.

Re L (a child)

Family Proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The mother gave birth to AM shortly after starting a three year prison sentence. The local authority obtained an interim care order and the mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the appeal on the basis that the relationship between AM and the mother should have been preserved pending a final adjudication of the issues in the care proceedings.

R (on the application of T (by his mother and litigation friend RT)) v Secretary of State for Justice and another

Children and young persons Detention. The claimant sought damages against the Secretary of State and Birmingham Magistrates' Court for detaining him when he was aged 13. In proceedings for judicial review of the decision to detain him, the claimant contended that the defendants had breached requirements to prevent his association with adult defendants and to respect his private life, and the public sector equality duty. The Administrative Court held that the only breach had been of the requirement to separate the claimant from adult defendants.