Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendant was one of fifty-two defendants sentenced by the same judge for their involvement in a violent episode of public disorder in Birmingham City Centre in July 2013 arising from a demonstration by the English Defence League and a counter-demonstration by United Against Fascism. Having pleaded guilty to violent disorder, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that there had been sufficient material to infer that, at least in part, the defendant's actions had been religiously or racially motivated but that the judge's starting point of three years' imprisonment had been too high. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to one of 16 months' imprisonment. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant, a six year old boy, suffered serious injuries following an accident in a swimming pool in which he was found at the bottom of the pool but later resuscitated. The Queen's Bench Division held that the lifeguards on duty had failed to identify the claimant as a child at risk had they done so they would have registered his disappearance and immediately searched to find him and remove him from the water. There was a causal link between that breach of duty and the injuries the claimant had sustained and he was entitled to judgment accordingly. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 should be interpreted as meaning that legal proceedings for compensation for disturbance of ownership and property rights, contractual performance and damages, brought by private persons who were holders of government bonds against the issuing state, fell within the scope of that regulation in so far as it did not appear that they were manifestly outside the concept of civil or commercial matters. 

Land – Charge. The claimant bank had a registered charged over the first defendant's property. The second defendant claimed to have leased the property with an unregistered option to buy it from the first defendant. The bank sought declarations concerning the priority of its legal charge over the property. The Chancery Division held that the bank was entitled to the declarations sought where, at the time the charge had been executed, it had had no actual or constructive knowledge of any interest in the property other than that of the first defendant and where the option, even if genuine, had not been validly exercised prior to the end of the lease. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division previously ordered the claimant's copyright infringement claim to be struck out unless he filed proper particulars and claimed damages less than £30,000. The defendants invited the court to confirm their understanding that the claimant had not complied with the unless order and so the action stood automatically struck out. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's claim remained for £2,560,000 calculated on a grossly inflated basis in breach of the unless order. It further refused relief from sanctions. 

Practice – Costs. The issue in the proceedings was whether a judge, who had not made the relevant costs orders, could nevertheless summarily assess the costs which were the subject matter of those orders. 

Divorce – Financial provision. Following a divorce, the Family Division made rulings as to the wife's claim for financial remedies. It held that, among other things, the husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £1,200,000, with credit for the value of any shares in a company which he had transferred to her. He was also to pay or cause to be paid joint lives periodical payments to the wife in the sum of £320,000 per annum. 

Pleading – Striking out. In the course of proceedings, the master ruled that elements of the claimant's claim would be dismissed. The claimant sought to re-amend its proceedings, and to introduce new documentary evidence. The Chancery Division held that, while the claimant's submissions concerning issue estoppel were correct, there should be finality. The application was an abuse of process, and would be dismissed. 

Limitation of Action – Land. The claimant was the freehold owner of a farm. In 1991, the defendant authority acquired a compulsory purchase order regarding some of his land. The claimant contended that he had not been properly compensated. He sought an order that the authority should refer the matter to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (the Tribunal) for assessment and an injunction restraining the authority from using the land as a road. The Chancery Division considered two preliminary issues. It held that s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied to the present application, but that it would be unconscionable for the authority to take a limitation defence. 

Family proceedings – Costs. Following the divorce and financial remedies hearing between the husband, wife and the second respondent L, the wife's half sister, the matter came before the court to determine costs. The Family Division held that taking all relevant factors into account, W and L should pay 25% of H's costs, on a standard basis, to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.