Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed applications by the first and second defendants and by the third defendant businessman, Robert Tchenguiz, for summary judgment on claims brought against them. The claim against the first two defendants was for specific performance of obligations under an alleged oral agreement (for the purchase of their interests in groups of companies) and the claim against Tchenguiz was for damages and an injunction restraining him from procuring the first two defendants' breach of the alleged agreement. It ruled that the first two defendants had not demonstrated that the alleged agreement could not in law have amounted to a binding and enforceable contract and the claimants' claim had a realistic prospect of success. Further, the claimants were granted permission to amend their particulars of claim, the benefit of which meant that they would have a realistic prospect of showing that an alleged threat by Tchenguiz could amount to the tort of abuse of process. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning proceedings by Coca-Cola for the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a contour bottle without fluting. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on a point of construction which arose from the apparent tension between the rules fixing costs in most lower value personal injury cases, found in s IIIA of CPR Pt 45, and the provisions in CPR Pt 36 which specifically applied to such claims. It held that the tension between CPR 45.29B and CPR 36.14A had to be resolved in favour of CPR 36.14A. 

Administrative law – Judicial review. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of KPMG's approval of Barclays' offer of compensation for mis-selling certain interest rate hedging products. KPMG's duties had not had sufficient public law flavour to render it amenable to judicial review. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-trial judgment relief. The Commercial Court granted the claimant lenders summary judgement on their claim against the defendants for sums outstanding under a syndicated loan facility agreement, along with interest. It ruled that the defendants' counterclaim for damages against the claimants could not provide them with an arguable defence to the claim because the 'no set-off' provisions of the facility agreement, under which the loan had been granted, were not subject to a test of reasonableness, under s 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, but applied with full contractual force.