Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant hospital board's appeal, held that, as a matter of principle, successive events were capable of each making a material contribution to the subsequent outcome. It was not persuaded by the appellant's argument that Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw ([1956] 1 All ER 615) was distinguishable because, in that case, the inhalation from two sources had been simultaneous, whereas, in the present case, the sepsis attributable to the appellant's negligence had developed after sepsis had already begun to develop. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division in a mesothelioma case brought on the deceased's behalf by his wife held that the deceased had not been contributory negligent and made an award of £85,000 in respect of an asbestos related disease in the upper half of the most severe category. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework's appeal in respect of the interpretation of para 21(4) of Sch 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and ruled on the proper interpretation of that provision. 

Solicitor – Advice. The Chancery Division held that the defendant firm of solicitors, which had acted on behalf of the claimant in respect of the purchase of land, and for another individual in respect of the sub-sale of part of that land, was liable to the claimant in negligence concerning the sub-sale. The defendant's principal, by attaching the wrong plan to the TP1 form and filing of it, had diminished the value of the retained land. The defendant was also liable for negligent advice concerning the amount of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) to be paid, with the result that the claimant had overpaid the SDLT. The concession to SDLT in respect of transfers of land, under s 45 of the Finance Act 2003, had been available because there had been substantial performance of the contract to purchase the whole site and the sale of part of it at the same time. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court partially allowed the claimant company's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeals against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of its applications for development. The inspector had considered two points which had not been raised by the parties, which had resulted in unfairness to the claimant. 

Rates – Charitable or other organisation. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated against the judge's decision, dismissing its application for liability orders for non-domestic rates against the respondent charity. The judge had not been entitled to take into account as a factor, when having assessed whether the premises had been wholly or mainly used for a charitable purpose, the fact that the premises had not been used for any other purpose. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the correct approach to European arrest warrants containing particulars of offences for which return was sought which stated that the sentences for other offences had been 'merged' in a variety of ways into the offences for which return was sought. In particular, it considered the warrants' validity with respect to the sufficiency of the particulars and specialty. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant, Sports Direct's application to commit the defendants, Rangers International Football Club and its chairman, to prison for breach of an order restricting the disclosure of certain confidential information, following the chairman's interview on Sky Sports, reported in an article. There was no evidence to that Rangers had held the chairman out as having authority to make the statements on its behalf, and an unverified hearsay statement of one or more unidentified reporter(s) was not a sufficient basis for persuading the court to the criminal standard that the chairman had uttered the words said. Further, it was fatal to Sports Direct's application that no order had been served personally on the defendants and the court declined to exercise the discretion, under CPR 81.8, to dispense with service. 

Prison – Life sentence. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant serving prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, refusing to re-categorise him from category A to category B and refusing him an oral hearing. His denial of the offence had not been treated as a bar to re-categorisation and an oral hearing would not have affected the decisions. Further, the claimant had been given an opportunity, reasonable in all the circumstances, to rehabilitate himself. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal from the defendant employer, following the entering of judgment by consent, seeking to rely on fresh medical evidence in relation to the claimant's claim that he had suffered diffuse pleural thickening and asbestosis caused by his exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment. The order would be varied to read that there be judgment for the claimant on breach of duty, with the issues of causation and quantum to be assessed.