Latest Cases

Limitation of Action – Personal injury claim. The claimant had been a dock worker who had come into contact with asbestos. In 2002 he was diagnosed with lung cancer. In 2009 he instructed solicitors who sent letters before action and, in 2012, issued proceedings seeking damages for personal injury. His claim was dismissed as being outside the limitation period, with the judge refusing to exercise his discretion under s 33(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the provisions of s 11. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the decision as having been correctly made and, in the light of established authorities, gave the true construction of s 33(3) of the Act. 

Adoption – Application. The applicant de-facto step-father, who was in a close personal relationship with the mother, applied to the court to adopt her two children. Each child had a different father. The trial judge refused the application and the father appealed. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal and held that the judge had fallen into substantial error in his evaluation of the balance of rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, hence, the overall proportionality of making adoption orders. In addition the judge appeared to have misinterpreted the statutory regime under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the requirements that it had placed upon him. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings for declaratory relief that the defendant Secretary of State had falsely imprisoned him and damages. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that a reasonable period of detention had not expired by the date upon which the claimant had actually been released. Further, there had not been any period during which it had been or ought to have been apparent to the Secretary of State that she would not be able to effect the claimant's deportation within a reasonable period. The Secretary of State's admitted periods of unlawful detention had been subsumed within an overall reasonable period. 

Road traffic – Careless driving. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a lorry driver who had been convicted of causing the death of an 89 year old man by careless driving. The man had been crossing the road at the time of the collision. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held, amongst other things, that although the judge's direction on the evidence had not been strictly correct, it could not be seen how the defendant's position could have in any way been improved. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence in part and substituted a period of 18 months' disqualifcation from driving for one of 12 months. 

Medicine – Product licence. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on the basis that, when conducting a re-inspection, the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) was knowingly gathering evidence in the context and for the purpose of infringement proceedings which had been brought against it under Commission Regulation (EC) 658/2007. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not declare that the MHRA's response to the European Medicines Agency's requests under art 8(3) of the Regulation had been unlawful or rule substantially rule on the contention that the material provided contained errors. Further, the MHRA's conduct had not been procedurally improper and unlawful in failing to advise the claimant of the potential use of the information. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. In dismissing an employee's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, confirmed that the practice of employment tribunals to consult between themselves after the hearing and for the decision to be written by the employment judge alone, without a draft being provided to the lay members, if properly followed, was a legitimate procedure which satisfied the requirement that the decision and reasons should record the conclusions of all members of the tribunal. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for her in purchasing a property. The solicitors did not advise her about restrictive covenants that affected the property. She carried out works in breach of the covenants and the neighbour with the benefit of the covenants complained. The claimant instructed the defendants to act for her. They did not, for some time, advise her to stop all works on the property but, when they did, she continued the works and the neighbour took out an injunction. The Recorder found the defendant had failed to make clear that the works had to stop and that, had the claimant known of the covenants, she would not have gone ahead with the purchase. Damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Recorder had erred in finding that the bringing of the injunction proceedings had been caused by the defendant's negligence, but that his conclusion that the claimant would not have gone ahead with the purchase had been correct. The appeal against the calculation of damages was successful in part. 

Employment – Equality of treatment of men and women. The employment tribunal, in considering the employee's claim for equal pay, found that the employee's work had been of equal value to that done by a male comparator and that the employer had failed to make out the genuine material factor (GMF) defence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal's findings had not been shown to be unsupported by evidence nor contrary to the agreed evidence. It had been entitled to conclude that the GMF defence had not been made out. 

Indemnity – Construction of indemnity clause. A foundation and the trustees of the foundation's pension scheme brought proceedings against the second claimant company for negligence and other wrongdoings. The claimant companies sought to recover sums due from the defendant group (RFIB) under an indemnity. The Commercial Court held that a limitation defence would, on the facts, not succeed. However, RFIB was only liable for the settlement sums to the extent that they were in reasonable settlement of the claim for losses occurring prior to the transfer date. It was not liable insofar as the sum represented settlement of the claim for losses occurring after that date. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of point (k) of the second paragraph of art 2 and art 3(3) of Directive (EC) 2009/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources). The request had been made in proceedings between Ålands Vindkraft AB (AV) and the Swedish Energy Agency concerning the latter's refusal to authorise, for the purposes of the award of electricity certificates, a wind farm in Finland operated by AV.