Latest Cases

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the claimant company was entitled to summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award of in excess of £10m in respect of work at a power plant, which the claimant had been engaged by the defendant company to carry out. The defendant's challenge to the adjudicator's decision on the grounds that there had been breaches of natural justice and/or a wrongful delegation of the adjudicator's decision-making function, failed in every ground. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held that in a claim for medical negligence in respect of the death of a prisoner by his former foster parent and their son, the claimants, that although the foster parent did have victim status under art 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the claimants had failed to establish violations of arts 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and accordingly their claims were dismissed. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether there was an 'evocation' within the meaning of that provision, the national court was required to refer to the perception of the average consumer who was reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, that concept being understood as covering European consumers and not only consumers of the member state in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the protected geographical indication was manufactured. 

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. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that reg B13 of the amended Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213, unlawfully discriminated, without an objective and reasonable justification, against female victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation under the 'Sanctuary Scheme' and against disabled children living in specially adapted accommodation who required overnight respite care, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The submissions that there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. 

Court of Appeal – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the third defendant company's application to vary an order requiring it to pay a judgment debt into court as a condition of the continuation of its appeal against a judgment awarding the claimant company (in liquidation) equitable compensation for dishonest assistance of breaches of fiduciary duty against the company by its sole director. The court took account of the position of third defendant's controlling shareholder and chairman, who was wealthy and able to provide it with financial assistance, and held that the third defendant had not established that it could not have satisfied the condition. In those circumstances, the court had no proper alternative but to dismiss the appeal. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Technology and Construction Court ruled on the first application, under reg 96 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, to lift an automatic suspension on a contract granted following the defendant local authority's procurement tendering process for the provision of substance misuse treatment and harm reduction services for substance users in Sunderland. In dismissing the authority's application, the court held that the effect of reg 96 of the Regulations was that the court would determine an application to lift a suspension according to the same American Cyanamid principles that applied in determining applications for interim relief. There was a serious issue to be tried in the present case brought by an unsuccessful bidder and the balance of convenience laid in favour of maintaining the suspension. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held in answering preliminary issues in a libel action, that the publication of the part of the article on the open website in the United Kingdom had not caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, and the pursuit of proceedings in respect of that publication would be an abuse of process. 

Misrepresentation – Damages. The Chancery Division held that, in the course of the purchase of office buildings, misrepresentations had been made to the claimant companies by individuals acting for the defendant company. The claimants were entitled to the return of their deposit, and to damages for the tort of deceit. 

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The Court of Protection had previously held, in what was agreed to be a matter of general importance, that a deputy or an attorney acting on behalf of an applicant in regard to an award under the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority could accept and finalise such an award on behalf of a patient. The matter returned to court to address certain matters regarding wording of the appointment of a deputy and the terms of the trust.