Latest Cases

Personal injuries – Action. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed a number of test claims made following the escape of smoke from a plant run by the defendant company. The court held that scientific evidence in the case did not begin to support the great majority of the claims, and there were serious weaknesses in the claimants' overall case. 

Guarantee – Construction. The claimant had issued proceedings seeking payment from the defendant insurance company under advance payment bonds and performance bonds that it had issued. The claimant applied for summary judgment, contending that the bonds were 'on demand' and so the liability to pay had arisen. The Commercial Court held that there was no material difference between general principles of contractual construction and 'Paget's presumption' for the construction of such instruments. Further, Paget's presumption applied not only where a bank had issued an instrument, but also to an insurance company, in the ordinary course of its business, particularly where the language of the instrument clearly indicated an intention to create an 'on demand bond'. The claimant's application was granted where, on the true construction of the instruments, they were 'on demand' bonds. 

Negligence – Hospital. The Queen's Bench Division on the issue of liability in relation to an injury suffered by the claimant as a result of the alleged negligence of the actions of the receptionist at the Accident and Emergency of the defendant hospital held that ultimately, it was the claimant who had to take responsibility for the consequences of the decision to leave the A and E department and not the defendant by its reception staff. 

Company – Administration. In the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe), the Chancery Division addressed the administrators' application for directions regarding the entitlement of creditors to interest on their debts for periods after the commencement of that administration. The court construed r 2.88 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, and its provisions for the payment of statutory interest. 

Trust and trustee – Document. The Chancery Division considered the interpretation of a clause in a servicing agreement that was part of the documentation relating to a commercial mortgage-backed securitisation transaction. It held that, overall, the claimant trustee's interpretation was to be preferred. 

Conversion – Defence. The Queen's Bench Division gave judgment in favour of the claimant casino owner in respect of a £2m dishonoured cheques proffered by the defendant. IN so doing it rejected the defendant's argument that he had a gambling disorder and his defence of illegality. 

Income tax – Employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had decided that in cancelling the taxpayer company's registration for gross payment under the construction industry scheme, the Revenue had failed to take into account a relevant factor, namely the financial consequences for the taxpayer. The tribunal decided that such a factor was not a relevant factor to be taken into account by the Revenue when deciding how to exercise the discretion conferred on it by s 66(1) of the Finance Act 2004. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. In construing s 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that that an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom had to be one which was validly made in accordance with the rules and that section could not be read in such a way that a decision on the application for leave included a decision that there was no valid application. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed as there had been no valid applications. 

Income tax – Capital allowances. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to the effect that the taxpayer had not been entitled to an annual investment allowance on the basis that he had permanently discontinued his trade in the tax year ended 31 March 2009, being the effect of s 38 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001. The tribunal decided that a discontinuance of a trade at the end of a chargeable period was a discontinuance of that trade in that period. 

Magistrates – Proceedings. The appellant Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the district judge's decision, refusing to make a criminal behaviour order against the respondent. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, gave guidance on s 22 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It found that the judge had erred by having focussed on the positive elements of such order to help prevent a person from engaging in anti-social conduct and regarding them as dispositive.