Latest Cases

Personal injuries – Action. In the course of proceedings against the defendants for an injury in the course of employment, the Queen's Bench Division determined that the claimant had proved that he had suffered from an actionable psychiatric injury, namely, hysterical pseudodementia. 

Tort – Fraud. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants claim for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding an investment made in the defendant's car hire company. On the fact the representations had not been made as alleged and in any event were not fraudulent. 

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. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Boxmoor Construction Ltd (Boxmoor) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that certain supplies by Boxmoor were not zero-rated supplies in the course of construction of a building designed as a dwelling within Item 2 of Group 5 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, but were chargeable to VAT at the standard rate. 

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. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the applicant local authority's application for an interim care order regarding LW, who had been born on 16 January 2016. The court criticised delays arising from the local authority's conduct and stressed the importance of making applications for public law proceedings in respect of new born babies timeously and especially, where the circumstances arguably required the removal of the child from its parent(s), within at most five days of the child's birth. 

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. 

Sentence – Sexual offences against children. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment for 13 counts of indecent assault, committed by a father against his daughter, contrary to s 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, had been unduly lenient. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a total term of eight years' imprisonment. 

Company – Investment business. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant companies' claim for repayment of €1.3m, following the restructuring of two funds in a portfolio of assets into one. On the true construction of the termination agreement between the parties, the sum in issue was included in the amounts that the defendant company was bound to pay the first claimant.