Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In an appeal against a decision to grant summary judgment in respect of enforcing of a default judgment made in the United States in favour of the claimant, the Queen's Bench Division held that the issues on the summary judgment application were arguable and therefore the appeal would be allowed. 

Practice – Trial. The Chancery Division ruled that, notwithstanding the first defendant's health condition, and where there had been previous adjournments and possible prejudice to the claimants, it was unable to conclude that there was a good reason for the first defendant's non-attendance at a recommenced trial or that there was sufficient reason for a further adjournment of the trial. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant suffered with non-freezing cold injury to his feet sustained while engaged on exercises, with unsuitable footwear, during his employment with the defendant. He was awarded damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and for future loss of earnings calculated by reference to the Ogden Tables. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal. The award for general damages was upheld but, while the finding that the claimant was disabled as a result of his injuries was correct, his loss of future earnings should not have been calculated by reference to the Ogden Tables and should have been calculated by reference to established common law principles. 

Negligence – Professional person. There were before the court claims by a number of claimants who had bought properties off plan under a contract drawn up by the defendant solicitors. The properties failed to be completed and the claimants brought claims against the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been breaches of duty by the solicitors but the question of causation in individual cases were not be addressed in the present proceedings. 

European Union – Community institutions. The Court of Justice of the European Union set aside a judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as the General Court had thereby dismissed the action brought by ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) for: (i) annulment of initially, a decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), refusing an application for access to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market; and subsequently (ii) for annulment of EFSA's decision, withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, save for the names of certain external experts. 

Trust and trustee – Disposal of trust assets. A family dispute had arisen over a trust in a property which was held in beneficial shares and the judge ordered that the first defendant was to have the opportunity to buy the property otherwise it would be put for sale on the open market. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct with regard to the ambit of her jurisdiction under ss 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and had exercised her discretion correctly. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The issue for determination was whether the judge had been permitted to make an order for the husband's payment of interim maintenance to the wife into an account in Russia when he was subject to sanctions imposed by Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the husband's appeal, held that the order was lawful, since it contained no provisions dealing with funds or economic resources within the scope of the Regulation without the competent authority's licence. 

Child – Protection. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether it was lawful for the defendant local authority to have a policy of retaining child protection records for a period of 35 years after a case had been closed. The court held that the policy was in accordance with the law, had been carefully considered, adapted to the purposes for which it was required, and was applied proportionately and flexibly. 

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant's claim, in a dispute over the purported exchange of a property in Leeds with one in Tehran. The court held that the claimant had made out his case for a constructive trust and/or proprietary estoppel, and the appropriate relief was to put the parties in the position that they would have been if the contract had been concluded. 

Estate agent – Regulation. The Administrative Court held that Sch 2 to the Estate Agents Act 1979 required that the person who was to decide the facts to determine whether to make a prohibition order had to personally and face to face conduct the hearing of oral representations. Accordingly, the authority lead enforcement authority's proposed procedure for an investigator only to hear oral representations was unlawful.