Latest Cases

Shipping – Charterparty. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellant charterer's appeal, held that the arrest of the respondent owner's vessel, due to a dispute between the receiver of cargo and the sub-sub charterer, could not be regarded as having been occasioned by the charterer's agents in the sense in which that word had been used in the time charter. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that it had been proved on the evidence that the deceased had suffered an actionable injury as a result of the totality of his exposure to asbestos, to which the defendant had made a material contribution and there was no need to prove that the contribution of itself had given rise to a discernible or measurable injury. 

Commons – Registration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the dismissal of their claim for judicial review of the defendant commons registration authority's decision refusing their application to register rights of common under the Commons Act 2006 on the basis that a right of common could not be created by prescription after 2 January 1970 over land that had been registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (the FTT) had had no jurisdiction to make an express order that the costs between the parties be shared, as it had fallen within the scope of the prohibition under r 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 and neither of the exceptions, wasted costs or unreasonable behaviour were operating. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Mayor of London's direction, under art 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, SI 2008/580, to the local planning authority that he be the local planning authority for the second interested party's planning and listed building consent applications. 

Town and country planning – Building of special architectural or historic interest. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a challenge by way of judicial review regarding the proposed Ordsall Chord elevated railway in Manchester. Neither the planning inspector in recommending the scheme, nor the Secretaries of State in having approved the scheme, had failed to act consistently with a decision maker's statutory duties relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and nor had the Secretaries of State misunderstood or misapplied relevant national policy and guidance. 

Negligence – Liability. The Queen's Bench Division in a clinical negligence case in relation to an unsuccessful eye operation dismissed the claimant's case against the defendant NHS Trust on the basis of the defendant's case that the vitreous on the claimant's left eye remained attached and that was sufficient for the defendant's case to prevail on the issue of breach of duty. 

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union determined that provisions of European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40, which prohibited the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour, were valid and dismissed the applicant's claim for a declaration of invalidity. 

Highway – Definitive map. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to the decision of the inspector for the defendant Secretary of State, confirming the local planning authority's order modifying the area definitive rights of way map to show footpaths, with a modification. The evidence provided a rational basis for the inspector's conclusion and his conclusion had not needed more extensive reasoning. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Privy Council dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the respondent's dismissal from his employment with the appellant. It considered whether there had been constructive dismissal, whether the respondent's conduct had justified dismissal, and whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius had miscalculated the remuneration package.