Latest Cases

Arbitration – Jurisdiction. The parties contracted for the purchase of iron ore fines. A dispute arose and was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made a decision on jurisdiction, which the claimant company did not challenge. He subsequently made a decision on liability. The claimant sought to challenge jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's applications, holding that it was not open for it to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. 

Costs – Order for costs. In previous proceedings, the claimant, Network Rail, had obtained judgment on all issues of principle, save for one minor issue. Network Rail sought indemnity costs and interest on the damages awarded. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the defendants would pay their own and the claimant's costs of the proceedings on a standard basis. The costs reserved from the first case management conference would be costs in the case and would be borne by the defendants, given the final costs order. Interest would run from the dates when the expenditure and losses had been incurred until judgment, with no gap, at the agreed interest rates. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 5(3), 6(1) and 23(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). The request had been made in proceedings between Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC), domiciled in Brussels (Belgium), and Akzo Nobel NV and other companies domiciled in member states other than Germany, regarding CDC's action for damages brought by virtue of claims for damages which were directly or indirectly transferred to it by 71 undertakings having allegedly suffered loss as a result of an infringement of art 81 EC and art 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. 

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. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The defendant solicitors had been in practice together until they were declared bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy of the first defendant applied for an order that time costs and expenses, which had been incurred in preserving files and records of the practice, reconciling the client accounts of the practice and incidental costs, should be deducted from the client accounts of the practice. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the court did not have jurisdiction to make the order sought because, among other things, the first defendant, notwithstanding being made bankrupt, had been under an unbroken and continuing duty to manage the client accounts and client monies in accordance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules and that obligation could not be, and was not, displaced by his bankruptcy and could be, and was, displaced only when the Solicitors Regulation Authority decided to intervene in the practice. 

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. 

Negligence – Clinical negligence. The claimant, through her mother, brought a case in clinical negligence against the defendants in respect of allegedly negligent examinations of the claimant prior to her developing pneumococcal meningitis combined with other features, which led to sustained irreversible brain damage. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claim against both defendants on the evidence.