Latest Cases

Damages – Measure of damages. In a personal injury case in which liability and causation were admitted but damages were in issue, the claimant applied for an interim payment in order to purchase a property to adapt for her own living arrangements. The Queen's Bench division allowed a payment under stage one of the judgment of Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] All ER (D) 144 (Mar) reasoning that such a decision would not create an unlevel playing field as between the parties. 

Employment – Fixed-term contracts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant trade union against a decision of the Court of Session, Inner House, that the employees in question who were on limited term contracts (LTCs) which had not been renewed had not been dismissed 'as redundant' for the purposes of the consultation requirement under s 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992. The Court decided that, contrary to what had been decided by the Inner House, the coming to an end of an LTC was 'for a reason not related to the individual concerned' for the purposes of the definition of redundancy in s 195(1) of the Act. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered a claim for infringement of European Patent (UK) No 2 292 219 directed to the use of rivastigmine for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease wherein the rivastigmine was administered by a transdermal therapeutic system. The court held that the patent was invalid on the ground of added matter and since the claimed invention lacked an inventive step over a previous patent. 

Employment – Unfair Dismissal. The employee was the Mayor of Liverpool. Prior to his appointment as Mayor, he was employed by the local authority at Chesterfield High School. He continued to receive salary and pension contributions from the authority, who treated him as an employee, although, for a substantial period, he was not required to provide any services. His employment was then transferred to the respondent, who was concerned that the employment was 'inequitable', as the publicly funded school was receiving no benefit. It terminated the agreement and the employee brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) who held that although the dismissal had been for a potentially fair reason, the respondent's dismissal procedure had been deficient and the claim was upheld. However, the tribunal also held that the employee's compensation would be subject to a 100% Polkey deduction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had not erred, and had been correct to deduct 100% of the employee's compensation under the Polkey guidelines. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision, finding that the various procedural requirements were established for her extradition to the United States to face trial for manufacture, importation and distribution of steroids and human growth hormones, and money laundering offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant's family life, together with that of her daughter, contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, it would not be oppressive, given her mental condition and risk of suicide. 

Practice – Settlement of action. The plaintiffs had commenced an action which, on the day of the hearing, was settled by agreement. The parties informed the judge that there was a settlement, it was personally ratified by the parties and such was recorded by the court. The plaintiffs then, unsuccessfully, applied to the Supreme Court of Mauritius for a new trial. The Privy Council dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as the Supreme Court had applied the correct test to the facts. 

Practice – Appeal. The court previously handed down judgment on the preliminary issue of whether the scope of the defendant's liability to the claimant was to be determined in accordance with the law of England or the law of Greece. The defendant, sought permission under s 12(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 for the grant of a certificate by the trial judge for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Queen's Bench Division granted the certificate as the matter concerned an important issue that would effect a large number of people. 

Compulsory purchase – Compulsory purchase order. The claimants challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order (CPO). The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the CPO had been confirmed by the Secretary of State on a basis other than that the interested parties had put forward at the inquiry. Further, the decision had to be quashed for the want of evidence to support crucial conclusions as to the reasonable prospect of an acceptable planning permission being granted and implemented, and given the failure to give the claimants a chance to deal with the changed basis of the CPO. 

Hospital – Negligence. The claimant suffered from hypophosphatasia. He had various hospital admissions because of problems arising from his condition. He issued proceedings against the defendant NHS trust, claiming damages for pain, injury, loss and damage arising out of his medical treatment. The Queen's Bench Division gave judgment for the defendant, holding that it had not been established on a balance of probabilities that the proven failures, which were breaches of duty, had caused the consequences alleged. 

False imprisonment – Elements of tort. The defendant taxi driver gave the claimant a lift to his home. Believing that the claimant was going to make off without paying, the defendant drove away with the claimant still in the back of the taxi. The claimant leaped out of the taxi and suffered severe injuries. The Queen's Bench Division held that, given the claimant's own negligence, there would be judgment for the claimant for 50% of his damages for the consequences of his injuries.