Latest Cases

Costs – Estimate of costs. The Queen's Bench Division found that the approach taken by the master when making a costs order that left hourly rates open to be debated on detailed assessment, was inappropriate. The master's approach had been inconsistent with CPR 3.15 and Practice Direction 3E. It provided the parties with no certainty as to what the approved budget was, limited their flexibility when deciding how to spend the budget, and created unnecessary micro-managing. Therefore, the offending parts of the master's order were set aside and any further costs management hearings were dispensed with.

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimant company's application to challenge the decision of an arbitrator in a construction contractual dispute failed. The Technology and Construction Court held that the arbitrator's findings had not been inconsistent with the route by which jurisdiction had been conferred on him. Further there had been no approbation and reprobation as alleged.

Negligence – Causation. The first, second and fourth defendants' admitted failures, including to check the claimant's pedal pulses, had not caused her arm and leg amputations. However, the Queen's Bench Division held that the third defendant's admitted failure to refer the claimant for an urgent opinion from a vascular surgeon, who would have initiated coagulation so as to have avoided the upper limb ischaemia, had deprived her of that opportunity and awarded damages in the agreed sum of £150,000.

Practice – Family proceedings. The judge had fallen into error in her assessment of the evidence, so that her finding of sexually-motivated abuse by the appellant father of his son, S, was not safe. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the father's appeal against a finding made in care proceedings brought by the first respondent local authority and remitted the matter for retrial by a different judge.

Practice – Pre-trial or post judgment relief. Upon termination of the defendant's contract, he became liable to repay the bonus that he had received from the claimant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, came to that conclusion on the basis of the interpretation of the terms of the termination and notice requirements.

Practice – Service out. The second to the fifth defendants' application to set aside an order granting the claimants permission to serve them out of the jurisdiction, concerning a claim for declarations, was dismissed. The Commercial Court held that, applying settled law to the facts, the test for service out had been satisfied.

Contract – Terms. The claimant company's application to amend its reply and defence to counterclaim failed. The Commercial Court dismissed the application, which sought to plead the defendant bank's conduct of related proceedings as a defence to the bank's counterclaims in restitution and subrogation.

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The judge had been right to hold that the prohibition on systematic verification of a right of residence in art 14(2) of Directive (EC) 2004/38 had not been infringed by Operation Nexus, under which foreign nationals who had been arrested would routinely be asked questions about their nationality and the basis on which they were exercising their Treaty rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant Aire Centre's appeal, further held that the judge had been correct to hold that police officers did have power at common law to ask such questions.

Employment – 'Worker'. The employment tribunal had been correct to find that each of the respondent Uber drivers had been working for the second appellant as a 'limb (b) worker'. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing Uber's appeal, further upheld the tribunal's decision that the working time of each of the respondents started as soon as he was within his territory (London), had the App switched on and was ready and willing to accept trips, and ended as soon as any of those three conditions ceased to apply.

Sentence – Appeal. The appellants' appeal against their convictions for attempted robbery was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had not erred in failing to leave to the jury an alternative count of assault. The offence of common assault was not reflected in the evidence nor by the gravity of the offence. Further, the judge's summing up to the jury had been fair and balanced and the jury had not asked any questions that indicated they had been struggling with a stark choice between conviction for attempted robbery and acquittal.