Latest Cases

Assault – Civil action. The claimant's claim for damages for assault, in which he alleged that unreasonable and excessive force was applied in the course of his arrest, was dismissed and he appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's decision on the basis set out in the respondents' notice. It held that, on the facts, the judge had been plainly wrong to have found, even as a 'borderline case', that it had been more likely than not that the force used had been unreasonable and excessive. In the circumstances of the case, the force used had not been unreasonable, excessive or disproportionate. 

Road traffic – Accident. In an accident in Portugal, two pedestrians were hit by a car as they crossed the road. One suffered serious injury and the other died. Personal injury proceedings were commenced against the driver's insurer. Liability was established against the driver with a finding that the pedestrians had not been contributory negligent. The insurer appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and held that, while the driver had been driving dangerously, the pedestrians had not been keeping a proper look out and had failed to take avoiding action while it had been possible. Therefore, the pedestrians had been 20% contributory negligent. 

Environment – Protection. The defendant company pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to regs 38(1)(a) and 39(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, following the discharge of untreated sewage from its pumping station. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in upholding the fine of £250,000 imposed by a recorder, held, among other things, that the court would have had no hesitation in upholding a very substantially higher fine. The court gave guidance on the approach to be adopted under the Sentencing Council's definitive guideline on environmental offences in respect of very large commercial organisations. 

Police – Unlawful conduct. The claimants issued proceedings against the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner for assault, trespass and false imprisonment. The jury found facts favourable to the Commissioner, but the claimants sought to proceed further on the basis that the Commissioner's liability could be established on a joint tortfeasor basis. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that the use of force by the individual officers for whose actions the Commissioner was statutorily responsible had been, on the jury's verdict, reasonable in the circumstances and the defence under s 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 succeeded, entitling the Commissioner to judgment. 

Bank – Securities. The Chancery Division considered whether the defendant issuers, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Lloyds Banking Group plc, were entitled to redeem certain enhanced capital note in advance of their respective maturity dates. That turned on whether a capital disqualification event (CDE) had occurred. The court considered the terms of relevant trust deed and made a declaration that a CDE had not occurred. 

Compulsory purchase – Compensation. The Homes and Communities Agency appealed against the valuation of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), awarding the claimant compensation in the sum of £746,000 in respect of the compulsory acquisition of two plots of land comprised within a compulsory purchase order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, set aside the decision of the tribunal and remitted the assessment of compensation back to the tribunal. 

Social Security – Services for sick and disabled person. The claimants sought judicial review of the legality of the Secretary of State's processing of their applications for personal independence payments. The Administrative Court held that the delay in the first claimant's case of some 13 months and the delay in the second claimant's case of some 10 months had not only been unacceptable, but had been unlawful. Accordingly, a declaration of unlawfulness in relation to C and W would be granted. However, their claims alleging breaches of their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention were dismissed. 

Practice – Strike out. The claimants brought proceedings to set aside a judgment granted in favour of the defendant, alleging that it had been obtained by fraud. The defendant applied to strike out and/or dismiss the claimants' claim. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that on the facts, it could not be concluded that the claimants had an arguable case, nor one with any realistic prospect of success, to set aside the judgment. The claimants' proposed amended case of fundamental deception did not save the proceedings, was not arguable and, in any event, was flawed by the fresh evidence rule, in particular the reasonable diligence requirement. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to face trial for four offences concerning the possession and supply or attempted supply of cannabis. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the interference with his child's family life outweighed the public interest in appellant's extradition. In particular, given the relative lack of seriousness of the offence with which the appellant was charged and the likely sentence which would be imposed in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, it would be disproportionate, within the meaning of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for the judge's order to stand. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Yoo Holdings Ltd against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Yoo Holdings Ltd, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'YOO' as a Community trade mark.