Latest Cases

Feeds

Maharaj and another v Johnson and others

Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The judge struck out the appellants' negligence proceedings against the respondent partners in a solicitors' firm as time-bared and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed the appellants' appeal. The appellants appealed. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appeal, held that, given the date that the appellants had suffered actual damage, their action in tort was time-barred. It further refused permission to amend their statement of case to plead a claim in contract, as the proposed claim was factitious. 

O'Brien (a protected party suing by his father and litigation friend O'Brien) v Shorrock and another

Costs – Order for costs. Following the settlement of a claim, the judge conducted a detailed assessment of costs and decided, inter alia, two preliminary issues relating to the conditional fee agreement (CFA) which the claimant's litigation friend had entered into with his solicitors. The MIB appealed against the judge's order. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal in part, ruled as to, inter alia, the assessment of the success fee and an issue concerning the 'back-dating' of the CFA. 

AA v AB

Minor – Abduction. A was three years and nine months old, and had been living in the United Kingdom with her mother since May 2014. A was born in Hungary and her mother was Hungarian. In December 2013 the mother and A returned to Hungary. The father brought proceedings for A's summary return to Italy pursuant to the provisions of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which drafted into UK law the provisions of the Hague Convention and the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Family Division held that A was habitually resident in Hungry at the time of her removal to the UK and that the father's application had to be dismissed. 

Miller v Gardiner and another; Miller v Little and another

Vexatious proceedings – Civil proceedings order. The proceedings concerned the rights to certain performances by Jimi Hendrix. The claimant, M, had made a number of applications and claims that had been found to be without merit. The Chancery Division struck out his current claims and made an extended civil restraint order against M. 

Graves v Brouwer

Negligence – Fire. The claimant's house was significantly damaged by fire and she brought proceedings against the defendant. The judge, in dismissing the claim, found that the fire had been caused by an escape from a fire at the defendant's property, but that he had not been negligent. The claimant appealed and the defendant cross-appealed on causation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross-appeal, held that the process of reasoning which had led the judge to conclude that the claimant had succeeded on causation was fatally flawed. 

Kolodziej v Regional Court in Lublin (Poland)

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of imprisonment for two years and six months for theft, criminal damage and burglary, committed in 2002 and 2003. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judicial authority was not in breach of the specialty provisions. Further, the appellant had been responsible for much of the delay and his extradition would not have exceptionally serious consequences for his family which outweighed the public interest in extradition. 

R (on the application of Larkfleet Homes Ltd) v Rutland County Council (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening)

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant had, unsuccessfully, sought judicial review of the defendant planning authority's decision to proceed to a referendum on a local development plan and against the conclusion that a strategic environmental assessment had not been required. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/767, on its true construction, did permit allocation of sites for particular development in national development plans. Further, it could not be said that the author of the screening report had failed to take the positive environmental effects of the development plan into account. 

Berlington Hungary Tanacsado es Szolgaltato kft and other companies v Magyar Allam (Hungarian State)

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6(3) TEU, arts 34, 36, 52(1), 56 and 61 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and arts 1, 8 and 9 of Directive (EC) 98/34. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and other companies against Hungary concerning an action seeking compensation brought by those companies for the damage that they had allegedly suffered as a result of the application of national legislation concerning the operation of slot machines contrary to European Union law. 

Blaj v Court of Alesd, Romania; Roman v Law Court Of Valcea, Romania; Trebuian v Territorial Military Court of Romania

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appellants appealed against orders for their extradition to Romania to serve prison sentences on grounds including that there was a real risk that they would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because of the poor conditions in all Romanian prisons. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that the appellants had not shown that they would be held in conditions breaching art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, with respect to their amount of individual space, especially given an assurance from the judicial authority to address that concern. 

Good v Lanarkshire Health Board

Medical negligence – Negligent surgery/ failure to organise appropriate surgery – Quantum. Court of Session: In an action in which the defenders admitted liability for negligent operations on the pursuer, who had fractured the neck of his left femur in a fall, and negligent failure to organise appropriate surgery when he was suffering chronic infection, which resulted in him becoming effectively wheelchair‑bound, the court held that an appropriate award for solatium was £135,000, that no deduction in relation to accommodation costs should be made because the pursuer now had a bigger and better property, that a total of 49 hours of care per week should be allowed, but that the costs of setting up and administering a personal injury trust and the costs of a case manager were not recoverable from the defenders. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

From Preston to Parliament

Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases