Latest Cases

Shipping – Bill of lading. A dispute had arisen between the parties as to whether or not bills of lading were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English court. The Commercial Court held that, on the construction of the clause in question, they were. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal on the true interpretation of the relevant clause. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 193 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax) should be interpreted as meaning that the only person liable to pay the VAT was the taxable person supplying services, where those services had been supplied from a fixed establishment located in the member state in which the VAT was payable. 

European Union – Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 2(1) and the second sub-paragraph of art 11(4) of Council Directive (EEC) 91/439 (on driving licences) had to be interpreted as meaning that a member state in whose territory the holder of a driving licence issued by another member state was staying temporarily was not precluded from refusing to recognise the validity of that driving licence on account of unlawful conduct on the part of its holder in the territory of the first member state after that driving licence had been issued that resulted, under the national law of the first member state, in unfitness to drive motor vehicles. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement in respect of a company, DTEK Finance BV, which was incorporated in the Netherlands, where there was a sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction and where, on the evidence, the necessary statutory requirements in s 899(1) of the Companies Act 2006 had been satisfied. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge refused the father's application for direct contact with his two daughters and made an order under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal against the orders. It held, inter alia, that there was nothing in the chronology of the proceedings that would lead the court to criticise the way in which the legal system had handled the case. The orders that the judge had made as to contact and under s 91(14) of the Act had been open to him in accordance with the law and nothing said in argument had persuaded the court that he had erred in proceeding as he had. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient was moved to a care home for safety following an assault by her husband in her home. The matter came before the court and the local authority recommended that the patient remain in the care home in her best interests. The husband sought her return home with a limited care package. The Court of Protection held that the patient would not receive the care she needed at home and the best quality of contact with her husband would not, be achieved by a return home.