Latest Cases

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant's appeal concerning an arbitration which arose out of a contract of affreightment (COA) made between the claimant, as owners and the defendant, as charterers of bulk carriers. The tribunal had erred in law by failing to hold that by being deprived, by the defendant's breach, of its right to receive freight, the claimant had suffered a loss, notwithstanding that the claimant had used two other companies to receive all inward freight earned under the COA and to pay all outgoing freight. The tribunal had not taken into account that, whilst one limb of the right to receive freight had been the right to receive it into one's bank account, another limb of that right had been the right to give it away. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held that, in the circumstances, the only substantive declaration that was appropriate was one that said that, unless and until it was challenged in litigation, the parties were bound by the decision in the first adjudication to the effect that the contract between them had been governed by a letter of intent, and not the JCT Intermediate Building Contract with contractor's design terms 2011. The adjudicator had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he had, and he had had the necessary jurisdiction to decide that there had been a valid contract which had incorporated the letter of intent. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by insurers against an order that they pay the claimants' costs of the proceedings, which had been made on the basis of, among other things, the exercise of the court's discretion to order costs to be paid by a non-party, pursuant to s 51(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The insurers were unable to demonstrate that the judge's exercise of his discretion had been flawed in any way. On the contrary, there had been ample material to have justified the order which he had made. 

Negligence – Defective premises. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's appeal from a decision of a master granting the defendants summary judgment on the claimant's claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and s 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 in respect of the death of her husband. There had been no real prospect of success on any part of the claim and summary judgment had been properly granted. 

Local government – Valuation for rating. Court of Session: Allowing appeals by an assessor against a Valuation Appeal Committee's decision concerning the valuation of six 'Run-of-the-River' hydroelectric schemes, the court held that the committee, in rejecting the assessor's argument that a sequential approach should be taken, erred in law in its interpretation of the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, and it quashed the valuations and remitted to the committee for reconsideration. 

Conflict of interest – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division held that it had no jurisdiction in respect of claims for declarations of entitlement to shares in companies registered in the name of the deceased, which had been 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of a decision that he was not entitled to asylum and that the discretion under r 353B of the Immigration Rules would not be exercised in his favour. An error in the decision letter had neither amounted to maladministration nor been a material error. It was inconceivable that, if the error had not been made, a different conclusion would have been reached on the facts of the case. 

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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – District plan. The Administrative Court allowed the claimants' application, under s 133(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, for an order that a policy of the local plan adopted by the first defendant local planning authority be treated as not adopted and remitted to the second defendant Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's inspector had failed to give reasons for acting as he had or had been irrational in making a recommendation without reasons.