Latest Cases

Practice – Personal injury. As a matter of law, an application, under s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, to dismiss a personal injury claim on the ground of fundamental dishonesty, might be determined at any time after the claimant's entitlement to damages had been established. Whether it should be determined before a quantum trial would depend on whether it could be determined justly at that time, which would depend on all the circumstances of that particular case. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the defendants' application, ruled that the claimant was presumed to have capacity, that he had been fundamentally dishonest in respect of his personal injury claim, arising out of a road accident, and that his litigation friend had participated in that dishonesty. The entire claim, including the 'honest part', was dismissed.

Contract – Breach. The proceedings concerned the use of a gas pipeline in the North Sea. The claimant company and the predecessors of the defendants entered into a contract, under which the claimant was entitled to a pre-determined capacity of pipeline gas. The claimant company sought various declarations as to its entitlement to withhold all or some of that amount; the defendants counterclaimed in debt for the full unpaid sum. The Commercial Court made ruling as to, among other things, the correct interpretation of the contract and whether the defendants had the right to restate certain capacity fees.

Town and Country Planning – Development plan. In upholding a decision of the High Court that the respondent's land was not suitable for registration as a town or village green, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was clear from the relevant development plan that to allow a registration of a town or village green within the settlement boundary would frustrate the broad objectives of the plan.

Insurance – Notification requirements. The claimant's remedial works had been carried out in order to mitigate a loss or potential loss that might have been the subject of a potential claim from a third party, such that the indemnity payable by the respondent insurer would be subject to that policy's limit of indemnity of £5m. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the insurer's appeal, further held that the claimant was precluded from claiming an indemnity under a second policy in respect of a potential third-party claim (or mitigation costs to avoid such a claim) that arose from circumstances notified to the first policy.

Personal injuries – Road traffic accident. The first defendant had failed to exercise the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable driver, so that he had been negligent when he had struck the claimant with his car. The Queen's Bench Division further held that the fair and equitable share of the claimant's blame was 30%, as there had been no sudden movement into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been correct to hold that there had been no direct discrimination against the appellant because a hypothetical comparator with the requisite medical risk would have been treated in exactly the same way, even if they had not had the appellant's particular disability. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, further dismissed the appellant's appeal concerning the duty to make reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination.

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court held that the defendants' challenge to the validity of a patent for ophthalmic administration for the treatment of glaucoma succeeded. The patent was invalid for obviousness in the light of prior art, as also was a proposed amendment to the patent.

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The defendant local authority's decision to use allotment land as part of the site of a new primary school, and to serve the claimant and other allotment holders notices to quit were quashed, as the authority had 'appropriated' the land for use as allotments, such that it could not dispose of the land without the consent of the minister. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review.

Shipping – Contract. The appeal of the claimant charterer (Boskalis) against findings of an arbitration tribunal was dismissed. The Commercial Court held that the tribunal had not erred in its interpretation of the charterparty in the case, and had been correct to find that Boskalis could not recover sums paid (including pursuant to an award from the tribunal) even though it had a defence, if that defence was not a counterclaim in respect of financial loss resulting from such payment or by way of an audit under the charterparty.

Human rights – Right to life. The touchstone for state responsibility, under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was whether the circumstances of the case were such as to call a state to account. In the present case, such failings as there might have been, concerning a 52-year-old lady (J) with Down's syndrome and learning disabilities who had died in hospital, were attributable to individual actions and did not require the state to be called to account. Accordingly, the Divisional Court, in dismissing a judicial review claim brought by J's mother, held that, on the evidence, it had been open to the defendant coroner to conclude that art 2 had not been engaged by the circumstances of J's death. The court further held that the coroner's approach to the evidence in the inquest could not be faulted and that he had correctly decided not to leave a determination of neglect to the jury.

Divorce – Financial provision. In the course of financial remedies proceedings, the husband applied, under FPR 24.12, for the issue of a letter of request for the examination of the wife in Florida, concerning the status of certain alleged assets there. The Family Court, in dismissing the application, held that, while such an application could be made in respect of a party to the proceedings, on the facts, the request was manifestly an attempt to go fishing, and that it would be disproportionate and unlawful to grant the application in circumstances where, among other things, the husband had produced no prima facie evidence that such assets actually existed.

Land – Rates. The valuation officer's appeal was upheld in a case concerning the correct approach to the determination of the rateable value of the respondent's office building in Blackpool, in circumstances where the evidence, at the relevant time, showed a general demand in the area for comparable office buildings, but no actual tenant willing to pay a positive price for the building itself. The valuation officer had initially assessed the rateable value of the property at £490,000, based on other office buildings of similar age and quality, occupied by public sector tenants at rents of the same order. However, the Valuation Tribunal for England (the VTE) had reduced the rateable value to £1. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) had allowed the valuation's officer's appeal, in circumstances where the parties had agreed that no-one in the real world would have been prepared to occupy the property and pay a positive price at the material valuation date. However, the VTE's assessment of the value at £1 had been restored on appeal. The Supreme Court restored the decision of the UT which had held that the correct approach required the rateable value to be assessed by reference to the general demand, as evidenced by the occupation of other office properties with similar characteristics.

Health and safety at work – Organisation of working time. Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive (EC) 2003/88, read in the light of art 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and arts 4(1), 11(3) and 16(3) of Council Directive (EEC) 89/391 should be interpreted as precluding a law of a member state that, according to the interpretation given to it in national caselaw, did not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured. The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the lack of a system for recording the time worked each day by the workers employed by Deutsche Bank SAE.

Social security – Benefit. The benefit cap which had been introduced by s 96(1) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and amended by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 (the revised benefit cap) were lawful as they did not discriminate against the appellants in relation to their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' appeals against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, which had also rejected the appellants' case.

Investigatory powers – Regulation of Investigatory powers. The judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court was not excluded by s 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In so deciding, the Supreme Court also held that the inclusion of reference to decisions relating to 'jurisdiction' in s 67(8) made no material difference to the court's approach.

Insurance – Policy. The Commercial Court made rulings in a dispute arising from a fire at the claimant company's premises. The defendant insurer had admitted liability, but there was dispute as to the appropriate basis for assessing compensation. Among other things, the court held that the claimant was entitled to be indemnified on the reinstatement basis in respect of the buildings, plant and machinery which had been damaged or destroyed in the fire. At the time of the fire, the claimant's insurance had been subject to a 20% co-insurance provision, and its claim for an indemnity in respect of the buildings, plant and machinery was to be reduced accordingly.

Costs – Judicial review. The appellant was entitled to his costs where he had withdrawn his application for judicial review of the respondent's decision not to comply with his Freedom of Information Act request, as the respondent had failed to comply with the applicable pre-action protocol. Accordingly, the Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal.

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The respondent's continued occupation of property that her husband and their family had been allowed to live in as part of the husband's contract of employment subsequently became a periodic assured tenancy, by virtue of s 4 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, in circumstances where the respondent continued to live in the property after her husband had left and even after their divorce. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appellants' appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appellants' application which had been made to it by way of a reference of a notice proposing a new rent under an assured periodic tenancy.

Employment – Termination. The judge had not reversed the burden of proof, erred in refusing to admit evidence or made perverse findings of fact. Accordingly, the Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claim against the respondent for damages for wrongful termination

Liquidator – Members' voluntary winding up. The liquidator of the Edgware Constitutional Club Ltd (the club) applied for a declaration as to the legality of certain past and proposed distributions of the club's surplus assets to its members, on a members' voluntary winding up. The defendant Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd (ACCL), which was affiliated to the club, challenged the proposed distributions, contending that ACCL was entitled to the surplus assets. The Companies Court, in granting the liquidator's application, held, among other things, that the club's rules, together with s 107 of the Insolvency Act 1986, indicated that the liquidator was compelled to distribute any surplus in the club's assets to its members. Accordingly, the court sanctioned the past and proposed distributions to the club's members, and the payment of the proper expenses of the liquidation.