Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The claimant broke his neck and was attended to by an ambulance crew, for whose actions the defendant was legally responsible. The assessment by the paramedic was negligent and it was only after he arrived at hospital that the correct diagnosis was made. The central issue to be determined was whether the admitted failure to immobilise the claimant's neck was responsible for at least part of his residual disability. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence, that there was evidence of both manhandling and deterioration in the case sufficiently compelling to support the conclusion that the manhandling was responsible for the deterioration. The claim therefore had to be quantified with reference to the 'but for' assessments of comparative function. 

Personal injury – Liability – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by a motorcyclist who underwent a below-knee left leg amputation after he collided in darkness with a milk tanker which was reversing into a farm road and blocking the road on which he was travelling, the court concluded that the accident was caused partly by the fault of the pursuer and partly by the fault of the defenders, that the proportion of blame attributable to the pursuer fell to be assessed at 40%, and that damages for the cost of prosthetics must be calculated in accordance with the defenders' expert's recommendations. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Voss of Norway ASA (Voss) in which it sought to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which that court had refused to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nordic Spirit AB (publ) and Voss, concerning the registration by Voss of a three-dimensional Community trade mark. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Mr Fares Al-Chihabi in which he had sought the annulment of certain European Union regulations and decisions adopted by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as those acts related to Mr Fares Al-Chihabi. 

Local government – Council tax. The claimant sought judicial review of the justices' order for costs of £125 against him in the local authority's favour as costs of obtaining a liability order concerning his unpaid council tax. The Administrative Court set out guidance as to the interpretation and scope of reg 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/613. It held that the justices had not had sufficient relevant information, and had erred in failing to make inquiries as to the computation and elements of the £125. Further, the claimant had been denied a fair opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the proposed order by the authority's failure to provide information as to the calculation of the sum. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a Zimbabwean national, whose appeal against the refusal of his application to have a deportation order revoked was dismissed by the First Tier Tribunal, and who sought reduction of the Upper Tribunal's decision refusing him permission to appeal, the court rejected arguments that there had been a collapse of fair procedure and that the consequences for the petitioner if he was returned to Zimbabwe would be drastic, and held that the test in Eba v Advocate General for Scotland was not satisfied. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Right to family life. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which a Pakistani national challenged a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim for leave to remain, the court held that the Home Secretary erred because her first decision letter did not provide the necessary assurance that she considered whether or not leave to remain should be granted outside the Immigration Rules, however the Lord Ordinary appeared to have overlooked the need to consider whether the error was a material one, and had she done so she would have been bound to find that the failure alleged was immaterial and, accordingly, also bound to dismiss the petition. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The respondent Secretary of State refused the first and third appellants' applications for leave to remain under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of leave to remain outside the Rules, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused to grant them permission to seek judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeals. In so doing, it considered, inter alia, the nature and application of the phrase 'insurmountable obstacles', as used in para EX.1 of Appendix FM to the Rules. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant to the interested party of planning permission to remove conditions of a planning permission, which limited the use of eight buildings to holiday lets. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, whilst there was no express finding of conflict with the development plan in the officers' report, the officers' approach, which had been to examine the impacts of the development proposed, could not be said to have significantly misled the members. Further, the committee had been aware of all material considerations. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following settlement of a personal injury claim, an issue arose as to whether the conditional fee agreement that had been entered into between the claimant and her solicitors had been enforceable as between them, which in turn affected the recoverability of the claimant's costs from the defendant. The district judge had found that there had been no agreement in place because there had been no intention to create legal relations. That was overturned by a second judge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. There had, on the facts, been a legally binding agreement that had been entered into at the claimant's home and the requirements of reg 5 of the Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2013/3134, had been met. The CFA had not been enforceable against the claimant and the defendant was not liable for the costs charged under it.