Latest Cases

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants claim in negligence in respect of the deceased police officer shot in the course of duty by an armed assailant dangerous assassin had to fail as the decision of the superintendent in charge of the manhunt operation not to issue a warning was a decision which fell within the scope of the rule of public policy that the police did not owe a private law duty of care. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division substantially refused the defendant's application for leave to appeal against his two convictions for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. However, the court had been unable to determine whether leave should be granted on one ground of appeal, thus, that ground would be adjourned with directions, for a further hearing. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court held, among other things, that, on the evidence, the claimant had been an investor, within the meaning of a bilateral agreement between Venezuela and Canada and therefore entitled to arbitrate a claim against Venezuela concerning mining concessions and mining rights. Consequently, Venezuela had lost its right to rely on state immunity in proceedings brought by the claimant to enforce an award of the arbitral tribunal in Paris. Further, s 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not require the service of the arbitration claim form on Venezuela in the manner contended. 

Contract – Breach. The Queen's Bench Division held in relation to or monies due and unpaid in respect of the sale of five consignments of rice as evidenced by the invoices held that the claimant was entitled to be paid but reduced by the amount due by various credits in the defendant's favour. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that a confiscation order, with a term of imprisonment to be imposed in default, to recover the value of a tainted gift which appeared to be nil at the date of the order had not been manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. In fact, the confiscation order was deemed proportionate in the circumstances. 

Building – Contract. The Technology and Construction Court, on the claimant developer's CPR Pt 8 claim for declaratory relief, held that the defendant building contractor had had no contractual right to have made or be paid in respect of an application for a further interim payment (or any subsequent application thereafter), in circumstances where the application had been made after the period covered by an agreed schedule governing the making of interim applications and payments. 

Practice – Order. The Chancery Division allowed an appeal by the appellant trustees in bankruptcy against an order (the Hay order) setting aside an earlier order (the Paul order) in proceedings where the trustees sought, among other things, a declaration regarding the ownership of a property. The court held that, considering the appeal in the light of the overriding objective, the matter ought to have been brought to an end once and for all by the Paul order. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of approximately nine months for offences of robbery, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. As the appellant had served the remainder of his sentence on remand, it would be disproportionate to his rights under art 8 of the Convention to order his extradition. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division acceded to the first defendant's application for strike out of certain paragraphs of the claimant law firm's particulars of claim on the basis that the claimant had no title to sue on insurance contracts made between the claimant's clients and the insurers. In so deciding, the claims brought against the third and fourth defendants also came to an end. 

Solicitor – Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a finding that two solicitors had been guilty of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust in a mortgage fraud. The honesty of those solicitors was to have been assessed as against what they had believed the facts to have been, and the judge had not made findings on all of that knowledge or belief. Further, he had failed to deal with what was, potentially, a good defence.