Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Security Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and other companies
Landlord and tenant Rent. Marks and Spencer (M+S) was the tenant of space in an office building, of which the defendant companies were the landlords. The lease was terminated. The issue arose of whether M+S was entitled to be repaid a part of the quarter's rent which had been paid, the relevant part being based on a daily apportionment of the quarter's rent in relation to the part of the quarter which was after the specified date for the termination of the lease. The Chancery Division held that there was to be implied into the lease a term requiring the lessor to repay to the lessee an apportioned part of the quarter's rent, car park licence fee and insurance paid for the relevant periods.
Solicitor Payment of costs by solicitor personally. The appellant firm of solicitors had knowingly taken instructions from a bankrupt without having obtained the consent of the trustee in bankruptcy. The claim had been struck out by reason of the claimant's bankruptcy and the absence of consent from the trustee in bankruptcy. Consequently, the court made a wasted costs order against the appellant. In dismissing an appeal against the wasted costs order, the Queen's Bench Division held that the court had been entitled to find that the appellant had acted improperly, unreasonably and negligently. No formal application for a wasted costs order had been necessary; the case against the solicitors had been made sufficiently clear and the appellant had been given reasonable opportunities to give reasons why a wasted costs order should not be made.
Conflict of laws Foreign proceedings. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant bankrupt's application for an anti-suit injunction in respect of proceedings brought by the respondent bank in the United States of America. The court held, inter alia, that it could not be regarded as oppressive or unfair or in any way improper for the question whether the bank should be allowed to maintain its action in the US on an English debt or whether those proceedings should be stayed or dismissed on the basis that the applicant had become discharged from his debts under the British statute, or indeed whether there should be any restriction on enforcement on post-discharge assets, to be determined by the New York court.
Town and country planning Permission for development. The interested party obtained planning permission for a proposed redevelopment of Twickenham rail station. The claimant applied for judicial review of the grant of planning permission on the basis, inter alia, that the defendant local authority had failed to take into account a material consideration in the form of a report (the TAP report). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal as the failure of the authority's planning committee to take the TAP report into account had not amounted to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations.
Landlord and tenant Eviction. The claimant had been a secure tenant of the local authority. While the claimant was on an extended holiday, the authority (which did not know of his absence) took possession of his flat and arranged to install a new tenant. The claimant issued proceedings seeking the payment of statutory damages for the loss of his right to occupy the flat. The judge ordered 90,500 damages be paid on the basis that it had to be assumed that the tenant's rights were for all purposes to be deemed to be those of a secure tenant, even after a hypothetical sale to a private landlord. The authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal, holding that the claimant's rights of occupation had, from the very grant of his secure tenancy, been vulnerable to being downgraded upon a sale by the authority to a private landlord and that downgrade could be taken into account in valuing a property for the purpose of s28 of the .
Land registration Rectification of register. The defendant and the claimant were business partners and the former joint registered proprietors of a petrol station (the property). The second respondent bank held a charge over the property. The property was transferred from the joint names of the defendant and the claimant into the defendant's sole name. The deputy adjudicator upheld the claimant claim to rectify the register, having concluded that the transfer was a forgery. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that there were no grounds to show that the deputy adjudicator's decision had been wrong.
Town and country planning Conservation area. The defendant local authority had granted itself planning permission for improvement to a town centre car park situated within a conservation area. The claimant opposed the planning permission and contended that the planning officer's report upon which the decision had been made was seriously flawed and the decision to grant planning permission was therefore unlawful. The Administrative Court rejected the criticisms of the planning officer's report, finding that the report contained a careful and lawful analysis of all relevant matters and the application for judicial review would therefore be dismissed.
Arbitration Adjudication. The defendant was the main contractor under a contract with London Underground Limited in respect of the refurbishment of Hammersmith Underground Station. The Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant's application for summary judgment and held that, in the circumstances, the defendant had no real prospects of successfully defending the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision.
Bankruptcy Trustee in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division considered appeals against the dismissal of applications for vesting orders made by the appellants. The first appellant had been the sole registered proprietor of a pier. The pier was subsequently vested in his trustee in bankruptcy who later disclaimed all interest in the pier. The court, in allowing the first appellant's appeal in part, considered SH's contention that the court had the power under s320 of the to make a vesting order in his favour in respect of that part of the pier that constituted his dwelling house and held that the judge's exercise of his discretion under s320(3) of that Act could not stand. SH's application would be remitted for reconsideration of the exercise of the discretion whether to make a vesting order in his favour.
Building contract Adjudication. The claimant and the defendant entered in to a contract for the provision by the defendant of a gas servicing and associated works programme. The claimant subsequently terminated the contract. The defendant referred a dispute to adjudication in respect of its entitlement to damages for breach of contract. The adjudicator made an award in favour of the defendant. The defendant applied to enforce the adjudicator's award. The claimant applied for various declarations. The Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court held that an adjudicator had jurisdiction to resolve all the issues put before him. It further held that, on the proper interpretation of the contract, the defendant had no entitlement to damages for breach of contract. Accordingly, the adjudicator had erred in his decision.