Latest Cases

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claimant's case, held that there had been no proprietary estoppel created, despite the money that she had paid to assist the deceased, H, in renovating a house. H had made no promise to leave the house to her and had said nothing to lead her to believe that such a promise had been made. 

Contract – Agency agreement. The Mercantile Court ruled on a preliminary issue in a dispute between the defendant fashion company and the claimant sales agency. It held that it was possible to sever an invalid proviso from the contract between the parties, with the result that the claimant would be entitled to an indemnity, rather than compensation on the termination of its agency. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 60(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 had to be interpreted as meaning that the deeming provision included there could lead to the grant of entitlement to family benefits to a person who did not reside in the member state responsible for paying those benefits, where all the other conditions for the grant of those benefits laid down by national law were met, a matter which was for the referring court to determine. 

Building contract – Judgment. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant, The Dorchester Group Ltd, was not entitled to judgment, pursuant to CPR 14.1, on its claim alleging that the defendant company had, contrary to a contract, failed to disclose to Dorchester certain discounts obtained from its mechanical and electrical sub-contractors. There was nothing on the face of the letter relied on by Dorchester that amounted to an admission, within the meaning of CPR 14.1, that it were liable to Dorchester for all undisclosed discounts. The court further made specific disclosure orders in respect of some, but not all categories of documents in respect of which Dorchester sought specific disclosure. 

Arbitration – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court considered the amounts owed to the claimant company following a number of adjudications in a construction dispute. The court made rulings as to the sums owed and the amounts payable. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division made an award of damages to the 28 year old claimant, a victim of historic sexual in her teenage years. The award was made up of amongst others, the elements of general damages, damages for mental distress and injury to feelings, aggravated damages an pecuniary loss. 

Evidence – Burden of proof. In deciding whether the claimant's claim for trespass to person against the defendant football club and coach had succeeded, the court having considered the evidence on a burden of proof basis, found that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof which rested on him, and accordingly the claim would be dismissed. 

Compulsory purchase – Compulsory purchase order. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of its application for costs expended in preparing to resist a compulsory purchase order and side roads order at an inquiry, which was subsequently cancelled. It held that the power to award costs, under s 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, did not exist where an inquiry was not convened. 

Prisoners – Inter-prison visits – Right to family life – Discrimination. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings in which the petitioners, two life prisoners, averred to be a gay couple, imprisoned in different prisons, complained that their Convention rights were violated because the Scottish Prison Service refused to arrange inter-prison visits for them, the court held that the petition was not time-barred; that on the information available the prison service had not failed to respect the petitioners' family life in terms of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and had not discriminated against them in terms of art 14; and accordingly they were not entitled to damages or human rights 'just satisfaction'. 

Copyright – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court dismissed the claimants' claim against the defendants for passing off and infringement of copyright in respect of the use of a trade name 'Hidden Gem', a logo and a photograph concerning jewellery where the acts complained of had been licensed at the relevant time.