Latest Cases

Negligence – Duty to take care. Claimant bringing action in respect of breach of duty against defendant solicitor following employment claim. The defendant admitted breach of duty in relation to the failure to lodge the claimant's cross-appeal before the relevant deadline but maintained that the claimant had not lost an opportunity of any value because the grounds of cross-appeal had no more than a negligible prospect of success. The remaining allegations of breach of duty were denied. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been no breach of duty however in respect to the admitted breach however the claimant was entitled to recover damages for the loss of opportunity suffered as a consequence of the defendant's breach. The loss of that opportunity as a loss of an 18% chance of overall success, either in the litigation or by achieving a settlement. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £6,500 in general damages. She suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which resolved 11 months post-accident and a phobia of driving which resolved one year post-accident. The claimant also suffered an injury to her hip which resolved four months post-accident, and a small scar on her eyebrow which was permanent but which was not particularly noticeable. 

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. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant appealed against the entry of judgment against him on the basis that the claimant had failed to disclose his bankruptcy, which had occurred after the start of proceedings, but before judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the first defendant's appeal had been founded on the false premises that the bankruptcy order had immediately deprived the claimant of his cause of action. The first defendant had failed to show that the claimant's property had passed to a trustee in bankruptcy before judgment, and that the claimant had known that the official receiver had become trustee, that his estate had become vested in the official receiver and that that had been so before judgment had been entered. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 (the contested decision), having found that certain undertakings, including Reagens SpA, had infringed art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area by participating in two groups of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices covering the territory of the EEA and concerning, on the one hand, the tin heat stabiliser sector and, on the other, the epoxidised soybean oil and esters sector. In the present proceedings, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Reagens SpA for annulment of the contested decision or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on that company. 

Natural justice – Judge. The appellant doctor was struck off by a Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP). He appealed the FTPP's determination on the basis that, inter alia, he had not had a fair hearing because the legal assessor had made disclosures which, he contended, indicated actual or potential bias. The legal assessor and the judge sitting in the appeal had been members of the same barristers' chambers and had a continuing professional relationship. The appellant sought that the judge recuse himself. The judge would recuse himself on the ground that the fair-minded observer, knowing the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that he was biased. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Laboratoires Polive for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausoni, SLU, and Laboratoires Polive concerning the application by Laboratoires Polive for registration of the word sign 'DODIE' as a Community trade mark. 

Judicial review – Pharmaceutical services. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings in which the owners of a pharmacy challenged a health board's decision authorising a medical group to provide dispensing services to all its registered patients residing in certain communities, the court held that the challenge was not barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence, and the decision was unlawful because the respondents misdirected themselves as to the proper construction and application of paragraph 44 of Sch 5 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and because the review and decision-making processes were conducted in a manner which was procedurally unfair to the petitioners. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another company in the same consortium (the applicants) for the annulment of the decision not to award the contract for 'Crimean tourism diversification and support project' to the applicants' consortium and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant in-house solicitor for a newspaper appealed against the finding of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) that he was guilty of failing to act with integrity and knowingly allowing the judge to be misled in the conduct of litigation. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge had been misled. The SDT, having disavowed making any finding of dishonesty, could not properly proceed to make a finding that the appellant had knowingly allowed the judge to be misled. However, it was inevitable that the SDT would have found him guilty on the basis that he had recklessly allowed the judge to be misled.