Latest Cases

Adoption – Practice. The Family Division considered two cases, which were heard together as they raised common issues, involving babies born to mothers from Eastern Europe, but relinquished at birth for adoption in the United Kingdom. Among other things, the court considered what jurisdiction the court had to have to make orders facilitating such placements and what factors had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures that should be followed. 

Practice – Parties. The Chancery Division allowed the claiming defendants' application for permission to join CL as a defendant to the counterclaim in a case concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants' copyright in the first defendant company's conduct of its therapy business. The counterclaim alleged that the claimants and CL had been negligent, both in their selection of a particular machine as a mandatory device for the administration of the therapy, and in their insistence on the continued use of the machine after problems allegedly became evident with it. The court held that CL had given direct advice to a number of the defendants, and that it could not be said that the claiming defendants had no real prospect of establishing their allegations against her. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim against the defendant for damages under s 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, held that the purpose of s 4(4) of the Act was not to create a strict liability, but to extend the application of s 4(1) of the Act to relevant defects which were outwith its scope and, therefore, to bring them within the scope of the section as a whole. Its purpose was not to confer an additional or alternative route to recovery where the claim under s 4(1) failed on its facts because s 4(2) was unsatisfied. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant's case against the defendant hospital in negligence succeeded, in that there had been negligence in failing to perform a timely brain scan and call an ambulance and that those failures caused the claimant's injury. The amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity payable was £107,470, with a total award in the sum of £454,858.65. 

Water supply – Charges. The Chancery Division ruled on charges for water and sewerage services supplied to properties inhabited by the defendant local authority's tenants. The court ruled that, among other things, between 2000 and 2013, the defendant had charged the claimant more than the maximum charge allowed under the Water Resale Order 2006. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had breached disclosure requirements in relation to the terms of a proprietary and freezing injunction relating to properties which the court had found he had had a beneficial interest in. He fell to be sentenced at a further hearing. 

Contract – Repudiation. The Companies Court ruled on consequential issues which arose following the main judgment on the claimant's petition alleging unfair prejudice in relation to the affairs of a limited liability company (LLP). Among other things, it considered whether its preliminary view had been wrong in respect of the validity of a third termination letter, giving the claimant notice requiring him to retire as a member of the management committee of the LLP. The court further ruled that the LLP should pay 50% of the claimant's costs, and that he should pay 60% of the LLP's costs in circumstances where the claim to be entitled to a share in the LLP had failed only at the last hurdle, but where the claimant had succeeded on all of the prior steps in the argument. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Unitech parties' appeal against the refusal to allow amendments to their pleadings in relation to five intended defences and allowed the lenders' cross-appeal against the refusal to order a payment into court or an interim payment. In respect of the latter, it was appropriate in the circumstances to make an order in line with the lenders' preference for a requirement for a payment into court. 

Criminal law – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of six years' imprisonment, for cruelty to a person under 16 years, servitude and assisting unlawful immigration to a member state, had not been unduly lenient. In the circumstances, the term imposed had been a well-judged sentence. Accordingly, the application for leave to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as unduly lenient, would be refused. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimant local planning authority's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, granting outline planning permission to the second defendant developer to build up to 85 dwellings and associated works. Because of the harm to designated heritage assets, limb 2 of para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework fell to be considered first and the inspector had only undertaken the weighted exercise in limb 1.