Latest Cases

Gaming – Lawful and unlawful gaming. The claimant casino issued proceedings to recover £1m on unpaid cheques provided by the defendant in exchange for chips, which she had lost. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that there had been no unlawful giving of credit to the defendant. Further, the defendant had not established any claim in negligence, as it was not fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care on the claimant to prevent her from using her cheque cashing facility. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant solicitor against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in which the Court of Appeal had decided that, applying s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, she was not a 'worker' within the meaning of s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was therefore not entitled to claim the protection of its whistle blowing provisions. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, deciding that s 4(4) of the 2000 Act did have the meaning ascribed to it by the Court of Appeal. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. During the proceedings, various interim orders were made, the effect of which was, ultimately, that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed against all of the interim orders made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant was granted permission to serve its contractual claim against the defendant out of the jurisdiction. The defendant sought to set aside the order on the ground that it had never entered into any contracts with the claimant. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that the claimant had failed to show the better argument that it had been a contracting party. Accordingly, the order for service out of the jurisdiction had to be set aside. 

Reparation – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought damages in respect of loss caused by fire in a farmhouse and outbuildings they owned, averring that the fire damage was caused as a result of fault and negligence of the defenders, firefighters having concluded that they had extinguished a fire at the farm but the fire having re-ignited after their departure, the court concluded that the pursuers had pled a relevant case which entitled them to proof before answer. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. In dismissing an employee's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, confirmed that the practice of employment tribunals to consult between themselves after the hearing and for the decision to be written by the employment judge alone, without a draft being provided to the lay members, if properly followed, was a legitimate procedure which satisfied the requirement that the decision and reasons should record the conclusions of all members of the tribunal. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The first defendant sought to set aside permissions to serve out of the jurisdiction granted to the claimant and second defendant. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was a serious issue to be tried, and that there was, at least, a good arguable case in relation to its gateways in contract, tort, contribution and necessary or proper party. Further, English jurisdiction was clearly and distinctly appropriate. 

Landlord and tenant – Assignment of lease. The Chancery Division considered the construction of assignment provisions in leases entered into by companies in the Hilton Group of companies and the effect of the Landlord and Tenants (Covenants) Act 1995. The court held that the claimants were entitled to the declaratory relief sought. 

Solemn procedure – Adjournment of trial diet – Time bar – Twelve-month rule. High Court of Justiciary: Passing bills of advocation by four appellants complaining against a sheriff's decisions ex proprio motu adjourning a trial diet to a future assize and thereafter granting a motion for an extension of time, the court held that the decision ex proprio motu to adjourn the trial diet was flawed and in any event the sheriff ought to have exercised his discretion and refused the extension. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant company retained the defendant solicitors' firm to act in the sale of commercial premises to another company. The sale was completed at a lower price than originally agreed and the claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for negligence. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the relevant clauses of the sale agreement had not exposed the claimant to the risks which it asserted as the foundation of its claim against the defendant. Further, the claimant's representative had had a proper understanding of the risks inherent in the transaction, and the detail and effect of the terms of the contract.