Latest Cases

Practice – Summary judgment. The main contractor for a house construction appealed against summary judgment on liability in favour of the building owners in the context of multi-party litigation concerning fire damage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that there were compelling reasons, under CPR 24.2(b) not to enter summary judgment. In particular, the position as to causation of the fire had not been so clear as to justify summary judgment and it had been inappropriate to have done so when similar issues had remained to be determined at a full trial as between the other parties. 

Insurance – Reinsurance. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the claimant company was not entitled to avoid two reinsurance treaties and could not recover the sum of around US$5.15m paid to the defendant under the treaties because, had a fair presentation of the defendant's position been given, it was not more likely than not that the claimant's representative would have refused to agree the treaties. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve two sentences of 18 months' imprisonment for fraud committed in 2001 and 2002. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would not breach arts 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Injunction – Discretion. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for an anti-arbitration injunction against the defendant, which had brought arbitration proceedings in Italy, where the parties had agreed, in a terms of business agreement, an exclusive jurisdiction provision for arbitration with the foreign seat. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. In a personal injury claim arising out of a collision between the claimant cyclist and a police car, the judge had found that the driver of the car had been negligent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeal, held that there had been no objection to the finding of facts made by the judge such as to enable the court to interfere. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second respondent local authority's issue of an enforcement notice. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had not required that the enforcement notice should have been amended so as to protect against the possibility that the structures could in future be used for residential purposes. Further, the inspector had not failed to have regard to relevant matters. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division, in the mother's absence, made special guardianship orders in favour of the maternal grandparents, together with 12 month supervision orders in favour of the local authority in respect of each of the three children. Parental responsibility for two of the children were plainly made out in the case. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Chief Constable appealed against the judge's order allowing appeals against a number of the trial judge's interlocutory orders concerning the amendment of the pleadings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the trial judge had taken too broad a view of the absolute immunity from suit and granted leave to make the contested amendments so that the issue of immunity could be revisited by the trial judge on the basis of his findings of fact. However, the judge had not approached another aspect of the appeal on the correct basis and he had misunderstood the nature of the claim being advanced. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had rejected an offer of permanent accommodation made by the respondent local authority, at which points its housing duty to her was discharged. The reviewing officer confirmed the decision and the appeal to the county court was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the reviewing officer had been entitled to find that there was no medical evidence that a property of its type would have the consequence that the appellant's mental health would be so affected by it as to make it reasonable for her to refuse to accept it in all the circumstances of the case. Further, the officer had conscientiously recognised the public sector equality duty and had been at pains to acquire all information relevant for that purpose. 

Limitation of actions – Triennium. Court of Session: In an action, raised in December 2004, in which the pursuer sought damages for physical and mental abuse he allegedly suffered between 1965 and 1971 whilst at a children's home run by the defenders, the court concluded that it was not prepared to exercise the discretion in terms of s 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Act to allow the action to proceed notwithstanding the expiry of the triennium in April 1979, as it was not equitable to allow it to proceed given the material prejudice the defenders had suffered as a result of the delay in bringing the action.