Latest Cases

Commercial contract – Construction. The Commercial Court ruled on the second case on the Financial List and held that, for a trade on the 2012 Loan Market Association terms in respect of a surety bonds facility: (i) the trade would, generally speaking, include the economic burden of the seller's obligations under issued surety bonds; (ii) the 'Purchased Assets' were, generally speaking, 'funded' to the extent that money had been paid by the seller under issued surety bonds, rather than to the extent by which the facility had been drawn by the mere issue of the surety bonds. 

Personal Injury – Contaminated land – Negligence – Breach of statutory duty. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers averred that they had lived at addresses at a housing development which, before the site was developed, was contaminated with harmful chemicals, that they inhaled vapours given off by the chemicals, became ill and had suffered loss, the court held that the pursuers' common law case against the first defenders, the developers, was irrelevant; the pursuers had pled a relevant common law case against the second defenders (who they said acted throughout as environmental consultants), and were entitled to a proof of their averments; their case against the third defenders, their housing association landlords, fell to be dismissed; neither the first nor the second defenders were in breach of s 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and on the face of it the pursuers' right of action had expired but the case would be put out by order to give the pursuers' advisers the opportunity to consider the sufficiency of their pleadings as regards limitation. 

Building contract – Terms. The Technology and Construction Court determined preliminary issues which arose in the court of a claim brought by the claimant company in respect of building work carried out at a warehouse in Kent. The issues included, among other things, whether a clause concerning limitation and notice of complaint, had been incorporated into a sub-contract between the first defendant contractor and second defendant sub-contractor and, if so incorporated, whether it was subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 

Personal injury – Exposure to asbestos – Liability. Court of Session: Following a proof on liability in an action in which the pursuer alleged that he had contracted mesothelioma due to negligent exposure to asbestos in the course of his employment with defenders, the court concluded that the evidence was not sufficiently reliable to entitle it to find as a fact that the pursuer was exposed to dangerous quantities of asbestos dust during renovation works between 1976 and 1979, and his action could not, therefore, succeed. 

Income tax – Partnership. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) which had allowed the taxpayer's claim for deduction of a payment made to a bank on the basis that it had been am expense incurred 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade' as required by s 34 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. The tribunal held that it was in the context of the limited liability partnership (LLP) conducted collectively that the taxpayer had to justify the deduction of his payment and that the payment at issue had not been incurred 'wholly and exclusively' for the purposes of the LLP's trade. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Administrative Court held that the claimant heterosexual couple's ineligibility to register as civil partners, under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, was not incompatible with their rights under arts 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The state had fulfilled its obligations under the Convention by having made a means of formal recognition of their relationship available and the denial of a further means of formal recognition which was open to same-sex couples did not amount to unlawful state interference with the claimants' rights to family life or private life. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court held that a doctor had a duty, under para 58 of the General Medical Council's (the GMC) Good Practice Guide (2006), to immediately notify the GMC of an adverse finding by a foreign regulatory body, notwithstanding that that decision was suspended pending appeal. Under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the five years after which an allegation would not proceed absent exceptional circumstances, ran from the date that the professional body actually made its findings and only the GMC registrar had the power to make a r 4(5) determination. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal to amend the particulars of a case of medical negligence in the case of a 6-year old boy with complex mental and physical disabilities following a home birth. It held that the amendment ought to be allowed even at the risk of the trial date being lost. The consolidation of all claims to be heard at one trial was so much more practical and economic in terms of time, trouble and cost to the parties. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division acceded to the applications of the defendants to strike out the claim form and particulars, and also to grant summary judgment. Having regard to the whole of the evidence the claim did not have a realistic prospect of success. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The request had been made in proceedings between several travel agencies and the Competition Council of Lithuania concerning a decision by which the latter had ordered those travel agencies to pay fines for having entered into and participated in anti-competitive practices.