Latest Cases

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. 

The respondent issued proceedings for negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty for damage suffered in an explosion at the appellants' factory. The judge found in favour of the appellants, but the Inner House of Court of Session reversed that decision and the appellants appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that s 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was to be read as if it said 'the creditor was not aware … that loss, injury or damage, which had been caused as aforesaid, had occurred'. Accordingly, any obligation the appellants had owed to make reparation to the respondent had prescribed before the proceedings had begun. 

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. 

Company – Distribution of assets. M built up a considerable business involving property and entertainment ventures. When he died, his business was split between the parties. A dispute arose and the claimants brought proceedings against P, M's brother. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that P had not, among other things, been in breach of contract, nor had he acted negligently. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of his immigration detention and the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of accommodation under s 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On the evidence, the claimant could have accommodated himself, and the Secretary of State had correctly judged when the time had come for release and had not acted unlawfully in having failed to release the claimant earlier. 

Crown – Prerogative. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Project Management Institute's appeal against the dismissal of its application for judicial review of the decision by a committee of the Privy Council to recommend to the Queen in Council that a Royal Charter should be granted to the Association for Project Management. The judge had reached the right conclusion on the substantive grounds of challenge to the decision. 

Mortgage – Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss 26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s 31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s 26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged. 

Sentence – Drug offences. Sixteen defendants appealed against the sentences imposed on them for their part in a conspiracy to supply large quantities of Class A drugs to crime groups for onward distribution. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the judge had correctly used the descriptors within the sentencing guideline for leading, significant and lesser roles for the purposes of distinguishing between the roles played by different defendants. The sentencing exercise had received detailed consideration both of the facts and the approach to sentencing in the area. 

Trade mark – Opposition to registration. The General Court of the European Union considered the applicant company's appeal against a decision that a contested design for 'cookies' was invalid. The General Court held that, on the evidence, the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) had not erred in refusing to consider the internal appearance of the contested design, and accordingly the application would be dismissed. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employment tribunal struck out the employee's claim, due to non-compliance with an unless order, and awarded costs against the employee. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal against the costs order on the ground that it had been unclear as to whether the tribunal had exercised any independent scrutiny of the sums claimed by the employer. If it had done so, the judgment had not adequately disclosed its reasoning in that regard. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for rehearing on the question of the amount of the award of costs only.