Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. The first defendant newspaper published sensationalist stories about the claimants' arrests in separate incidents. The claimants issued proceedings, alleging infringement of privacy and confidentiality. The first defendant applied to strike out the claims on grounds including that the proceedings concerned damage to reputation and should only have been brought in defamation, which were statute-barred or an abuse of process. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the applications, held that the first defendant had not established that it was sufficiently plain that a claim based on damage to reputation could only be brought in defamation. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl regarding the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'FAIRGLOBE' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

The proceedings concerned a tendering process carried out by the respondent Common Services Agency in 2010 in respect of the provision of medical services to health authorities in Scotland. The appellant submitted that, among other things, the court below had erred in treating the reasonably well-informed and diligent tenderer (the RWIND tenderer) as a hypothetical construct, and in applying the RWIND tenderer standard according to the court's assessment of what a hypothetical RWIND tenderer would have done or thought. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the question could not be determined by evidence, as it depended on the application of a legal test rather than being a purely empirical enquiry. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling in which it held that, on a proper construction of art 2d(4) of Directive 89/665, where a public contract was awarded without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, but that was not permissible under Directive 2004/18, the contract could not be declared ineffective, if the conditions laid down in that provision were, in fact, satisfied, which it was for the referring court to determine. 

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. 

Riot – Damage. In the course of the 2011 London Riots, a gang of youths broke into a warehouse, looted it and burned it down with petrol bombs. The judge held that the gang were 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled' so that the defendant Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime was liable to compensate anyone who had sustained losses, but that the defendant's liability did not extend to consequential loss. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had been correct in his findings on liability. However, s 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 included a right to compensation for consequential loss. 

Mental health – Human rights. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a patient who was detained indefinitely in the State Hospital, challenging a decision to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking there, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondents did not have the power to implement the prohibition on smoking under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and in holding that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, or, if it was, that there had been disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights. 

Personal injury – Liability. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought damages for an injury sustained when she fell onto steps after a seagull swooped at her outside a building owned, occupied and operated by defenders, the court held that the pursuer had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the gull which attacked her came from the defenders' building, and in any event her case under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 fell on the first hurdle of reasonable foreseeability and her statutory cases under regs 5 and 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 also failed. 

Bank – Documentary credit. The judge continued and made interlocutory an interim injunction restraining the second respondent bank from making a payment to the appellant under a letter of credit, as the fraud exception had been established. The Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Mauritius affirmed the decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council articulated the fraud exception test applicable to letters of credit at the interlocutory stage, but held that the fraud exception had not been satisfied. Further, the judge had erred in his approach to the balance of convenience, given the insuperable difficulty recognised by the authorities.