Equity Fiduciary duty. The claimants alleged that the first defendant, a former employee and director of the first claimant company, had, in breach of his fiduciary duties, dishonestly solicited and received bribes paid by or on behalf of various defendants during the course of his employment in connection with four areas of chartering business. The Commercial Court held that the claims had been made out in respect of various claimants. It further held that a dishonest assister of a fiduciary, who had diverted profit derived from the fiduciary's breach of duty, to an offshore company, which the assister owned and controlled, was accountable for the profits he had made.
Costs Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, made an order for costs against a man personally and in his capacity as administrator of his late mother's estate, in circumstances where he had managed and maintained the trial of an action in the capacity of his mother's litigation friend after his mother had died.
Pension Pension scheme. The claimant trust company was the trustee of a pension scheme known as the IBM Pension Plan plan. It sought an order rectifying a trust deed and rules, which created, amongst other things, the 'C Plan' to grant employees a right to retire on an unreduced pension at any age between 60 and 63. In a supplemental judgment, the Chancery Division held that, applying settled law, IBM was not required by its imperial duties to consent to the amendment which the trust company had requested, nor could the trust company make the amendment without that consent.
Local authority Residential care home. The claimant was an elderly lady living in a residential care home run by the defendant charity pursuant to arrangements made by the local authority under of the National Assistance Act 1948. A reorganisation took place which posed a threat to the claimant's continued occupation of the flat in the shape of her possible need for nursing care. The claimant applied for judicial review of the decision to reorganise. The Administrative Court held that there was no breach of a compromise agreement reached between the parties or of the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, that the local authority had not acted unlawfully in its management of the transfer of the claimant's care.
Solicitor Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the defendant firm of solicitors against a judgment of the High Court, in which it had been found that the defendant had acted in breach of trust and breach of contract, in circumstances where, due to a deception by the seller's solicitors, the defendant building society had been unable to obtain a charge on a property.
Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection approved an agreed final order requiring the patient to live at a care home. The court held that, in the circumstances, the interferences with G's private life, including monitoring of his correspondence and telephone calls, were in compliance with art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Medical treatment Withdrawal of treatment. The Court of Protection held that it would not be appropriate to make the declaration sought by the application NHS trust. It held that the withholding of the stated treatments would not be in the patient's best interests.
Trust and trustee Trustee's costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in proceedings brought by the executor of an estate, held that a costs order in Beddoe proceedings had been wrong in law and the result of an implicit misdirection. It was declared that the claimant was entitled to an indemnity out of the estate for his costs of the Beddoe application, up to the date of a consent order.
Statute Commencement. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the failure by the Scottish Ministers to draft and lay regulations under s268 (11) and (12) of the before the Scottish Parliament prior to 1 May 2006, and their continued failure to have done so since that date, had been unlawful.
Costs Order for costs. The Chancery Division had previously found that the claimant had been wrongfully demoted from his position with a housing trust as a result of postings on his Facebook page. The parties sought the quantification of his damages and the trust sought its costs, as a result of the claimant's failure to accept a more advantageous offer. The court awarded the claimant damages of 98, together with interest of 4.10 and found that justice would be served by making no order for costs.