Latest Cases

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant surveyors sought contribution, under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, from the defendant solicitors in respect of money they had paid to a mortgage lending company in settlement of its claim for damages for negligent over-valuation of a property. The Chancery Division, in allowing the surveyors claim, held that the solicitors had breached their duty to report a discrepancy between the purchase price of the property and the valuation provided by the claimant to the lender. On the facts, there would be equal apportionment of responsibility. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Privy Council dismissed an appeal against refusal of summary judgment on a claim seeking to enforce an option to purchase land. The terms that the appellant sought to be implied into the agreement were not needed to give business efficacy to the agreement, therefore, the respondents had a more than fanciful prospect of success in defending the claim. 

Divorce – Arrangements for care and upbringing of children. Following the breakdown of their marriage and subsequent divorce, the parties participated in a financial dispute resolution on 7 November 2013. The parties were able to agree final capital apportionment between them, including the making of a pension sharing order. Two areas upon which they could not agree were whether or not there should be some 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife; and whether or not those periodical payments payable to the wife should be the subject of some ultimate term or cut off. Giving consideration to s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Family Division stated that it would be totally speculative to consider a 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife or to say that they would be subject to a cut off. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimants purchased a yacht, which developed severe problems shortly after purchase. They were assured by the defendant solicitor's firm that a warranty given by the sellers was backed by a personal guarantee, which was not the case. The solicitors accepted negligence but denied that it had had any causative effect. The Commercial Court held that although the claimants had succeeded on liability, they had suffered no loss and were therefore entitled to judgment for only nominal damages. 

Bank – Documentary credit. The judge continued and made interlocutory an interim injunction restraining the second respondent bank from making a payment to the appellant under a letter of credit, as the fraud exception had been established. The Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Mauritius affirmed the decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council articulated the fraud exception test applicable to letters of credit at the interlocutory stage, but held that the fraud exception had not been satisfied. Further, the judge had erred in his approach to the balance of convenience, given the insuperable difficulty recognised by the authorities. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant in a personal injury claim was refused permission by the district judge to amend his defence late in the proceedings in order to plead formally a case in contributory negligence. The defendant sought permission to appeal and an appeal if granted. The Queen's Bench Division in granting permission and allowing the appeal held that Justice and fairness required that the amendment should have been allowed so that 'the real dispute' between the parties could be adjudicated upon. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's argument, amongst other things, that the employment tribunal had been wrong to hold that the indirect discrimination that the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584 had created by providing, in the exemption set out in reg 12(8), more favourable access to employment opportunities for United Kingdom students than for non-UK students had been justified. The EAT decided that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the discriminatory effects had been justified as being in pursuit of a legitimate aim. 

Riot – Damages – Compensation. Court of Session: Refusing reclaiming motions in two actions by the owners and operators of a secure residential facility who sought to recover their losses from the local authority resulting from an incident at the school which they described as a riot, the court held that the pursuers had not failed to relevantly aver a case of entitlement to compensation under s 10 of the Riotous Assemblies (Scotland) Act 1822, as the phrase 'unlawful, riotous or tumultuous assembly', as used in s 10 could apply to the events at the school and the pursuers could qualify as 'parties injured' in terms of s 10. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's rejection of her application for a replacement passport. The Secretary of State contended that the claimant was not who she claimed to be, but was the sister of that person. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not discharged the burden upon her to establish that she was who she said she was and that she was entitled to British citizenship. Accordingly, she was not entitled to a passport. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant had been accepted by a junior academy of a well know football club when he sustained an injury which required surgery. Following the operation, he underwent a rehabilitation programme under the supervision of the club physiotherapist. The injury failed to resolve satisfactorily and the claimant was left with a knee which was unfit to withstand the rigours of a professional football career and had abandoned any lingering hope he had to pursue such a career following the catastrophic happenings to his knee. The claimant brought a claim in negligence against the general practitioner, the physiotherapist and the club. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was impossible to hold that the claimant has established any breach of duty against the second defendant and thus the third defendant. The admitted negligence of the first defendant had caused 50% of the septic arthritis induced damage to the claimant's knee.