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. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The appellant solicitors appealed against the judge's finding of negligence and award of damages to the respondent client on the basis of the loss of a chance of further recovery in his claim for services required as a consequence of his disability. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge's findings on causation were unassailable. If properly advised, there would have been no sensible reason for the respondent not to pursue the services claim. Further, it was inherently implausible that the respondent had given up the services claim because he had realised that it had been based on exaggeration at least verging on dishonesty. 

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. 

Guarantee – Misrepresentation. A bank sought to enforce two limited guarantees signed by the defendant, as security for facilities provided by the bank to a property development company owned by the defendant and his son. The defendant contended that he was entitled to rescind the guarantees on the grounds of misrepresentation and economic duress. The Chancery Division, in granting the bank's claim, and in dismissing the counterclaim, held that, whilst, in principle, a statement by a bank or other financial institution that it wanted to increase its exposure in a particular business sector might, if untrue, be capable of providing the basis for a claim in misrepresentation, the defendant had, on the facts, failed to establish that defence or economic duress. 

Company – Director. The Companies Court dismissed the claimant's appeal against an order disqualifying him from acting as a director of a company for 12 years. The order was not obtuse or conceptually incoherent as alleged by the claimant. Further, the registrar's judgment in relation to the length of disqualification was in accord with principle and authority. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant and the defendant entered into two written agreements, a master agreement (the master agreement) containing general terms and conditions and an insulation scheme event transaction document (the document). The claimant contended that under the terms of the document the defendant was in breach of contract. The defendant denied that it was in breach of the document or at all. Furthermore it sought to rely on, inter alia, cll 10.1 of the master agreement which excluded liability for indirect losses and limited liability for direct losses to £1,000,000. The claimant denied that the clause limited or excluded liability for the losses it suffered as a result of the breach of the document.The Queen's Bench Division held that cl 10.1 of the master agreement had not excluded liability for the claimant's losses. 

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. 

Warrant – Search warrant. A search and seizure warrant was issued and executed at the claimants' home and business address, and a large quantity of material was seized. They issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the warrant had been unlawfully issued and the documents wrongly taken on the basis of material non-disclosure. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, determined the applicable test for setting aside a warrant. Applying that test, it set aside the warrant, as there had been a material non-disclosure which might well have led the judge to issue a warrant which, had there been full candour, he would have refused to issue. 

Employment – Termination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had not erred in finding that ss 57A and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to the employee's case. The tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusion that it had done, and the employee's appeal would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Guinean national sought damages, declarations and an order for an inquiry for her unlawful immigration detention. The Administrative Court granted her claim. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to damages, but an investigation into the circumstances of the claimant's detention would not be ordered, as they were well documented.