Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned an agreement relating to the proposed redevelopment of the site of the embassy of the United States of America in Grosvenor Square. In determining the claimant, Chelsfield's, applications for summary judgment, the Chancery Division considered, among other things, whether the first defendant, QDDC, had a real prospect of success in establishing that the continuation of the agreement between the parties had to be dependant on the continued existence of a relationship of trust and confidence between them. The court allowed Chelsfield's application for summary judgment in respect of its claim for a declaration that the agreement remained in existence and had not been determined. It dismissed Chelsfield's application for summary judgment in respect of its claim for an order, among other things, requiring QDDC to instruct an expert to complete his determination of the terms of a subsidiary agreement. 

Employment – Remuneration. The appellant teachers took part in a one day strike and, as a result, the respondent college deducted 1/260 of their annual salary to reflect the value of the service which the teachers had failed to provide on that day. That fraction was based on five working days per week. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' contention that the appropriate deduction was 1/365. The court held, among other things, that pay did not accrue at an equal rate day by day and that relating the work to the total number of annual working days provided an acceptable principle which possibly erred in the employees' favour. 

Tort – Cause of action. A famous concert pianist, author and television film-maker (J) sought to publish a book about his life, which included details of the abuse he had suffered as a child. His ex-wife sought to prevent the release of the book on the ground that it would cause their young son psychological harm. A High Court judge dismissed an application on behalf of the child for an interim injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claim alleging that the release of the book would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm to the son should go for trial (Wilkinson v Downton [1895-9] All ER Rep 267) and it granted an interim injunction restricting its publication in a certain form. The Supreme Court, allowing J's appeal, considered the proper approach to the tort of intentionally causing physical or psychological harm in modern law and held that the publication of the book was not within the scope of the conduct element of the tort of wilful infringement of the right to personal safety. There was no basis for supposing that J had had an actual intention to cause psychiatric harm or severe mental or emotional distress to his son. Taking all factors into account, the only proper conclusion was that there was every justification for the publication. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The appellant Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the UT), holding that the respondent had been identified in notices given by the FCA to a firm. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set out the correct approach to the issue of identification for the purposes of s 393 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It then held that the UT had been wrong in its articulation of the relevant tests, but had reached the correct conclusion that the 'matters' in the notices had identified the respondent. 

Negligence – Damages. Liability was admitted by the defendant hospital in respect of negligent failure by the paediatricians to recognise and to treat an infection which led to the development of meningitis. Various matters remained in issue for the court to decide. The Queen's Bench Division decided on: (i) the amount recoverable for future care; (ii) the amount recoverable for case management; (iii) the sum recoverable to cover the additional cost of holidays caused by HS's disability; and (iv) whether the cost of a hydrotherapy pool at HS's home was recoverable. 

Negligence – Damage. The claimant suffered a severe head injury as a result of a collision between his motorcycle and a tractor and trailer driven by the first defendant. He brought a claim for personal injuries and damages. On a trial of liability only, the court found that the collision had been caused by the first defendant's negligence, for which the claimant had been two-thirds contributorily negligent. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision that full-time nursery education for children from the age of three free of charge would cease to be available. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the consultation exercise carried out by the authority had been fair in all of the circumstances and it had dealt adequately with the issue of realistic alternatives. Further, the issue of childcare had been approached on the basis of a correct appreciation of the authority's statutory duty. 

Intellectual property – Design rights. The claimant and the first defendant were competing wholesalers of furniture, which they sold to retailers such as the second defendant. The claimant sought damages for loss allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of tables, allegedly infringing the claimant's design rights in respect of its own tables. By a Tomlin order, the defendants agreed that there should be an inquiry as to damages on the basis that they had infringed the claimant's unregistered European Union and United Kingdom design rights. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court ruled that, in relation to 20% of the sales of both tables by the first defendant, the claimant was entitled to the profit it would have made from sales of equal numbers of its own tables of equivalent design, plus the profit it would have made from sales of convoyed goods. In relation to the remaining 80% of sales of infringing tables by the first defendant, the claimant was entitled to damages of £100 per table. 

Contract – Terms. The defendant company entered into a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) to sell or procure the sale of businesses and related assets, including a property, to three companies, including the claimant company. Under the SPA, the property was to be transferred to the claimant, but in the event, the claimant acquired a ten year lease in respect of it. The SPA contained environmental provisions, by which defendant agreed to indemnify the claimant and others in relation to environmental matters. The claimant sought a declaration as to whether, on the true construction of the SPA, it had a claim against the defendant, under the indemnity clause in the SPA, simply by virtue of the presence of hazardous substances at the property. The Chancery Division dismissed the claim, ruling that the claimant did not have a claim unless it could establish that it was liable to some third party for all sums payable to, or by reason of the directions or order of, any authority or agency responsible for compliance with environmental laws. 

Land – Estates or interests capable of subsisting at law. The second defendant trustees owned a site of land over which the claimants had obtained a unilateral notice following the issuing of a claim. The notice inhibited the ability of the trustees to deal with their property. The trustees applied to cancel the notice. The Queen's Bench Division cancelled the notice as the basis of the notice was a money claim, namely for the introduction fee. Such a claim was not a proprietary claim and the notice had to be vacated pursuant to para 2 of Sch 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002.