FHR European Ventures LLP & Ors v Cedar Capital Partners LLC, heard 17-19 June 2014.

Court of Appeal judgment: [2013] EWCA Civ 17

The appellant entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement with a Monte Carlo hotel to sell the hotel for a fee of 10 million EUR. The appellant also then acted as an agent on behalf of the buyers. Once the buyers had notice of the fee the appellant had been paid, they brought proceedings for the 10m EUR sum. The High Court held the appellants were liable to pay the buyers the commission they had received as it had not been properly disclosed. However, the High Court also held that the claim only gave rise to a proprietary right, rather than the sum having been held on constructive trust for the buyers. The Court of Appeal held in receiving the commission the appellant had exploited the buyers and therefore the sum was held on constructive trust for the buyers and gave rise to proprietary rights. The Supreme Court will decide whether an agent receiving a secret commission holds the sum on constructive trust for the principal, which also gives rise to proprietary rights.


R (ZH & CN) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham and Sims v Dacorum Borough Council, to be heard 23-26 June 2014.

Court of Appeal judgment: [2013] EWCA Civ 805

The appellants CN and ZH both spent time living in temporary accommodation provided by the London Boroughs of Lewisham and Newham respectively. After a time, the Local Authorities required the appellants and their families to leave the temporary accommodation as they were found ineligible for assistance. The appellants then brought proceedings for judicial review of the decisions.

In Sims, the appellant and his wife were secure tenants of a property owned by the Local Authority. The appellant’s wife left the property and gave notice to quit, which terminated the tenancy, following the decision in Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478. The Local Authority took possession of the property against the appellant. The appellant brought proceedings arguing the rule in Monk was incompatible with ECHR, art 8 and Protocol 1, art 1. The Court of Appeal held they were bound by Monk.

The Supreme Court will decide whether temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996, Part VII constitutes a building occupied under a licence and therefore provides protection from eviction and also whether the local authority must obtain an order before an eviction can be made. They will also decide whether the decision in Monk is compatible with the rights above and if not, whether it should be reversed.


Healthcare at Home Ltd v The Common Services Agency, to be heard 23 June 2014.

Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division judgment: [2013] CSIH 22


The appellant submitted a tender in response to the respondent’s invitation to tender for a compounding, dispensing and delivering a certain drug in Scotland. The appellant had already been providing such services for eight years yet their tender was unsuccessful. The appellant made a challenge to the decision arguing the respondent had breached the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Inner House (Second Division) made an error in their interpretation of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006, reg 4(3) and consequently in their decision as to whether the respondent had breached the Regulations. They will also decide whether a reference to the CJEU is necessary to bring clarity to the issues in this case.