Latest Cases

Indemnity – Negligence. Following a flood at a recently constructed block of flats, the building owner commenced proceedings against the main contractor which led to a series of claims against the chain of sub-contractors. The judge found that the mechanical sub-sub-sub-contractor (Robson) had been liable for two defects in workmanship which had been the principal cause of the flood with the result that the Robson was liable under the indemnity clause contained in the agreement by which it had been engaged by HSE. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld that decision and found that HSE's failure to inspect the work properly, even when the breaches should have been detected upon a reasonable inspection of the work, had not shut out its claim under the indemnity. It could not have been presumed that the parties had intended to confine the indemnity clause only to workmanship breaches which had been invisible upon reasonable inspection. 

Injunction – Freezing order. The claimants (Anglo Financial SA and Fortis), brought proceedings against the defendant solicitor in respect of alleged breaches of loan agreements. A freezing order was made against G without notice. The claimants applied to continue the freezing order. The Chancery Division dismissed the application, ruling that there was no basis to find a real risk of dissipation of assets by G in the absence of a freezing order. 

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 – Costs order. Issues arose regarding costs in relation to parties against whom the claim had been stayed. Having given consideration to the relevant principles in operation where there had been no determination of liability, the Technology and Construction Court held that in all the circumstances, the appropriate order as between the claimants and the relevant parties was that there should be no order as to costs except for certain discrete applications. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was a corporate entity which provided services to the United Kingdom and other governments. The defendant was a former employee of the claimant and the author of at least two blogs in which confidential information was published. The claimant sought an order requiring the respondent solicitors for the defendant, to disclose his name. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and held that the disclosure of the client's name would have the practical effect of disclosing confidential communications between lawyer and client. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of the alleged historical sexual abuse of his step-daughter. He appealed, relying on the fresh evidence of a man who also worked at the workshop where the abuse had allegedly occurred. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissing his appeal against conviction, held that the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe, since the evidence did not establish that the assaults could not have taken place. 

Design – Design right. The claimant brought proceedings against his brother, the first defendant, and the second defendant for infringement of a United Kingdom registered design and of UK unregistered design rights in respect of a contact lens cleaning device. A judge had found that the unregistered design rights relied on by the claimant had been infringed by sales by the second defendant of two products and he ordered an account in relation to the sales of one product. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, having considered the relevant profit made by the first claimant from the sale of the product, held that he was liable to pay the claimant the sum of £15,800. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Following the claimant Russian national's divorce from a British citizen, the defendant Secretary of State refused her further leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on the fact that her former spouse had worked elsewhere in the European Union during their marriage. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had been Wednesbury unreasonable in failing to take into account that the claimant had been exercising rights as a family member under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for some of the period she had been in the UK. 

Practice – Hearing. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to propose to the European Union Council of Ministers to add their names to a list of designated individuals against whom freezing orders would be made as part of international sanctions against Iran. The Secretary of State sought a declaration, under s 6(2) of the Justice and Security Act 2013, for an order that a closed material procedure could be used. The Administrative Court, in making the declaration, held that the conditions under s 6(4) and (5) of the Act had been met, as the material in question was sensitive and there was no practicable alternative to a closed material procedure if the case was to be fairly tried. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union held, on a preliminary ruling, that Council Directive (EEC) 91/477 (on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons), as amended by Council and European Parliament Directive (EC) 2008/51, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that which was at issue in the main proceedings, which authorised the issue of a European firearms pass only to holders of weapons used for hunting and target shooting purposes.