Latest Cases

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. 

Employment – Continuity. The service provided by the disabled employee was transferred to a new employer which involved increased hours of work. The employee's request for a reduction in the hours of work proposed was refused. She claimed that such an increase would cancel an adjustment which had been made to her in the light of her disability and would be discriminatory. The new employer took the view that the employee did not come within any of the classes of those entitled to make a claim as set out in the Equality Act 2010. The employment tribunal disagreed and decided that her claim could proceed to a determination on its merits as she came within the terms of s 39(1) of the Act as an 'applicant' On appeal by the new employer against that decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal judge had rejected the employee's claims for unfair dismissal and compensation under the tribunal's jurisdiction pursuant to r 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal against that decision, deciding that the tribunal had taken into account wholly mistaken factors. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the tribunal to reconsider the question of rejection of the claim form by a different tribunal judge. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for wrongful dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and whistle blowing claims. On appeal by the employee against those findings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision, taking the view, among other things, that the employee had been unable to demonstrate that the tribunal had fallen into error in finding that the matters relied on by the employee did not constitute protected disclosures. 

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. 

Trinidad and Tobago – Fatal accident. PB was killed in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant administratrix of her estate obtained judgment against the driver. The appellant raised an action against the respondent insurer, which pleaded that it had already paid out the maximum $1m to third parties with claims arising out of the accident and had discharged its contractual liabilities. The appellant was granted summary judgment, but the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago allowed the respondent's appeal. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that s 10 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Act (Ch 48:51) contained no provision authorising the insurer to delay paying a claim established against its insured in order to enable other claimants to catch up so as to allow the rateable payment of multiple claimants on a limited insurance fund. 

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. 

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. 

Income Tax – Relief. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeals by partners in two partnerships against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had refused the partners loss relief in relation to their expenditure on certain films on the basis that they had not been carrying on a trade in the relevant periods. The tribunal further rejected the partners' applications for judicial review. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. Under a lease plus agreement (LPA), a community centre was developed and let by the claimant, as landlord, to the defendant, as tenant. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the operation of the payment provisions, which were contained in the LPA. The claimant applied to the court for a determination of the issues in dispute. The Technological and Construction Court made declarations concerning the true interpretation of the LPA.