Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal upheld the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal, subject to a 75% deduction under the Polkey principles and 75% contribution and dismissed his complaint for wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred by failing to make specific findings of fact as to the misconduct alleged against the employee, both in relation to contributory fault and wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, those matters would be remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The parties were both companies which, among other things, provided vehicle rental services. The proceedings concerned alleged infringement by the defendants of the claimant's trade mark. In the course of proceedings, the claimant made an application seeking to adduce survey evidence. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate for the survey evidence to be adduced. 

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. 

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. 

Contract – Construction. The parents' children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term's fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen's Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Mr Al-Tabbaa, a Syrian businessman, for annulment of acts by the European Council containing restrictive measures against Syria which concerned the applicant, namely, initially, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP (implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 410/2012 (implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria). 

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. 

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.