Latest Cases

Damages – Assessment. The defendant was the sole proprietor of a silver business at the London Silver Vaults. The claimant purchased, through the defendant, a large quantity of silver for investment. The claimant demanded delivery of the silver by a certain date, but only some of the silver was delivered. The claimant brought an action, seeking damages for conversion. Judgment was entered in default of acknowledgement of service. The Commercial Court held that the claimant was entitled to recover damages of £406,760.33, based on the fall in value of the silver eventually delivered to it. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant issued proceedings for judicial review, seeking a ruling that the defendant clinical commissioning group (the CCG) had an obligation, under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, to provide her with accommodation as part of the health care package with which it should provider her free of charge under the NHS. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given pending Court of Protection proceedings to determine the claimant's capacity, it was too early to say that the CCG was bound in law to find that the claimant had a reasonable requirement of accommodation which needed to be met out of NHS resources. 

Immigration – Appeal. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which had set aside the First Tier Tribunal's (FTT) decision to allow his appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to revoke a deportation order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal had not erred in law in setting aside the FTT's determination and, further, had not erred in re-deciding the issue de novo. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had invested in a fund operated by the defendant, a Gibraltar company, which had lost all its capital. The claimant brought a claim in negligence and breach of contract against the defendant and served the claim form, without permission, outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2)(b)(iii) and art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the service of the claim where the claimant had a good arguable case that there had been a concluded agreement, within art 23 of the Regulation. 

Tort – Wrongful interference with goods. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendants, claiming damages for conspiracy, and for trespass to and/or conversion of and wrongful interference with containers of aircraft spares. The Queen's Bench Division held that the conspiracy claim had not been established, but that the first defendant had converted the containers it held as bailee. The fourth defendant was also liable for conversion for taking possession, through the third defendant, of the containers and disposing of them. Damages would be limited to the sale price achieved of £7,500. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant pharmaceutical company brought a claim against the defendant laboratories in relation to the repackaging of imported pharmaceutical products from abroad without the relevant license. The defendant put in a defence regarding the involvement of a sister company. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence it was arguable that some of the pharmaceutical products were invoiced and supplied to the sister company, which were then delivered by the claimant to the defendant laboratories for repackaging. The court gave the defendant conditional leave to defend. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The claimant company, Richmond, formed an agreement with the first defendant company, Chester, whereby Chester would invest in Richmond. Chester subsequently instructed another company to market shares in Richmond. Richmond subsequently claimed that the way in which the shares had been marketed had resulted in a substantial loss of Richmond's business. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, although the defendants had committed breaches of their statutory, contractual and equitable duties, none of the breaches of duty committed had caused any loss to Richmond. 

Sentence – Minimum period of imprisonment. The Attorney General brought a reference concerning the offender's sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum term of six years, less time spent on remand, for the manslaughter of his mother and sister. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that, if the court chose to work with the currency of minimum terms, it did not need to have regard to early release provisions. As the ultimate sentence imposed by the judge had been unduly lenient, a minimum term to 13 years and four months would be substituted. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A number of agreements came into existence with a view to the making of a Spanish film entitled La Mula based upon a novel about the Spanish Civil War (the project). The first claimant was a well known film director and the second claimant was a partnership between him and his wife. The first and second defendants (also husband and wife) were shareholders in the fourth defendant, of which the fifth defendant was a wholly owned subsidiary. The sixth defendant was a company incorporated and wholly owned by the claimant. A dispute arose following the start of the project and the claimants brought proceedings in tort. A master allowed summary judgment against the claimants and refused to allow a proposed amendment which would have, in effect, changed the proceedings. He also made a costs order. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's application for permission to appeal as the master's decision had merely been a robust case management decision and in any event had been correct in law. 

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.