Latest Cases

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been a breach of duty in the failure to treat and diagnose the claimant's injury. The examining doctor had not undertaken an examination which had addressed and elicited responses in relation to all three tests in the guidelines and therefore, his examination had fallen below the requisite standard of care in order to satisfy to the Bolam test. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimants' challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, dismissing the first claimant's appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to grant fresh planning permission with new conditions so as to regularise the on-going use of the site by the claimants' families as a gypsy caravan site. In particular, the inspector had not failed to distinguish between availability and suitability of alternative sites. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection in response to an application by a NHS Trust held that a patient following an assault by her violent partner lacked capacity to make decisions under ss 1-3 of the Mental Health Act 2005, and it was lawful and in her best interests to undergo termination of her pregnancy by surgical means and in the course of that process to undergo general anaesthetic and ancillary treatment. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to the interested party for a crematorium within the Green Belt. There had been no error of law in the decision-making process on the part of the authority. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on appeals by Bratt Auto Contracts Ltd (BAC), Bratt Auto Services Ltd (BAS) and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) by which it had determined a preliminary issue in related appeals against the rejection by the Revenue of the respective VAT repayment claims of BAC and BAS. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant indeterminate sentence prisoner's application for judicial review. In having a system in which the review date for consideration of the transfer of indeterminate sentence prisoners to open conditions and the actual transfers had been so delayed, the defendant Parole Board had been in breach of the common law duty and, as that systemic failure had directly affected the claimant, also in breach of his ancillary right under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Insurance – Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles. The Mercantile Court ruled that the claimant insurer of the first defendant's car, which had caught fire at his place of employment while being repaired, causing damage to the employer's premises and the adjoining premises, was entitled to a declaration that the first defendant's car insurance policy, did not cover a claim (the claim) by the employer's insurer against the first defendant for an indemnity in respect of the sums it had paid out as a result of damage caused by the fire. It was not a 'normal function' of a car to undergo repair. The repair that had been undertaken to the car did not amount to 'using' the car, within the meaning of the car insurance policy. Accordingly, the policy did not respond to the claim. 

Damages – Personal injury. In an appeal against the method of calculation of damages made to the appellant following the death of his wife from mesothelioma, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the trial judge to assess the multiplier from the date of death, as previously decided by the House of Lords, rather than from the date of trial. The Supreme Court decided not to follow those earlier cases on the basis that the correct date as at which to assess the multiplier when fixing damages for future loss in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 should be the date of trial and not the date of death. 

Criminal evidence – Sufficiency of evidence – Unreasonable verdict – Misdirection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted art and part of culpable homicide, along with a co-accused who was convicted of murder, the court rejected grounds of appeal contending (i) that the trial judge had erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient, alleged admissions by the appellant in text messages having been demonstrably wrong and there being no evidence which could corroborate them, (ii) that even if there had been a sufficiency of evidence the verdict was one which no reasonable jury could have reached, and (iii) that the judge erred in his directions to the jury about what was capable of amounting to corroboration of the texts. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision, granting the interested party planning permission for the construction of acoustic barriers, use of land for the storage of shooting huts and associated development. The authority had not failed to consider material considerations and its decision had not been irrational.