Latest Cases

Libel and slander – Preliminary point of law. In the course of the claimant's defamation proceedings against them, the defendants sought the trial of preliminary issues as to serious harm, identification, meaning and abuse of process. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the applications, held that it was appropriate to determine serious harm as a preliminary issue, as it was a threshold condition in any action brought pursuant to the provisions of the Defamation Act 2013. Common sense and the overriding objective required early determination of serious harm, reference, abuse of process and meaning to enable a determination to be made as to whether the claims should continue. 

Family law – Marriage – Forced Marriage. Sheriff Court: Dismissing an application by a local authority for a Forced Marriage Protection Order in respect of a 15-year-old girl, the court held that the girl had not been forced into a marriage, nor had any attempt to force her into a marriage been made, she did not want an order to be made, and one was not required in order to secure her health, safety and wellbeing. 

Highway – Definitive map. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking the quashing of an order made under s 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, modifying the definitive map of public rights of way by adding a new footpath, as confirmed by the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, properly construed, the inspector's decision had been rational and she had given adequate reasons for her conclusions. 

Medical negligence – Occlusion of artery/ischemia – Liability – Causation. Court of Session: In a medical negligence action by a pursuer who developed ischemia in her left arm, which was caused by occlusion in the brachial artery, which was caused by a cannulation carried out by a radiographer (the first third party) during an MRI scan, the court concluded that the first third party was in breach of her duty of care to the pursuer and that the breach caused her injury, that the defenders, as the first third party's employers, were vicariously liable for her breach of duty, but were entitled to look to her for indemnification, and that she was not entitled to a contribution from the second third parties, Forth Valley Health Board, who had contracted the defenders to carry out MRI scanning at their hospital. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. Upon the father's application, the judge made an order that the mother return or cause the return of their son, S, to the jurisdiction of Morocco. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the mother's appeal, held that Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 did not apply to the present case and that the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996 did not confer jurisdiction to make the order that had been made. The return order would be set aside and an order dismissing the father's application would be substituted. 

Costs – Order for costs. The parties sought costs orders, following the Queen's Bench Division's previous decision finding the defendant liable to the claimant for 100% of her damages, despite being unsuccessful on the second limb of her claim (see [2015] All ER (D) 24 (Feb)). The court held that the existence of a CPR Pt 36 offer did not insulate the claimant from a proportionate costs order. Accordingly, a costs order would be made in the claimant's favour limited to a percentage of her costs appropriate to reflect the percentage of time expended on, and 100% of the disbursements directly incurred in, establishing the first limb, but not the second limb. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant employer for damages for psychiatric illness and consequential loss caused by work-related stress. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the claim had to fail as to the claimant's first breakdown, as the foreseeability threshold could not begin to be surmounted on any view of the evidence. Further, there had been no breach of duty in respect of the claimant's first attempted return to work and, had a general risk assessment been conducted, no general risk of psychiatric injury would have been uncovered. 

Family provision – Widow. The claimant brought a claim, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, in respect of the estate of her deceased husband. The defendants sought an order for summary judgment or to strike out the claim. The Family Division held, inter alia, that it would be fundamentally unjust to terminate the application at the present stage before there had been a scrutiny of the underlying documents which would prove conclusively whether the averrals by each of the defendants that there had been no relevant dispositions in their favour were true or false. 

Disclosure – Collateral use of information obtained. The Serious Fraud Office applied for an order, pursuant to CPR 31.22(2), restricting or prohibiting the use of certain documents which were previously disclosed in proceedings which had subsequently been settled. The application was resisted by the claimants in the third claim (the RT claimants). The Commercial Court made the order sought, subject to one additional point raised by the RT claimants with regard to confidentiality. 

Misrepresentation – Exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. The claimant sought damages for the defendant's misrepresentations, under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The Commercial Court, in allowing the claim, held that the fact that consideration for subordinated notes had been paid by the claimant to a third party, not the defendant, had not taken the case outside s 2(1) of the Act and, in principle, the defendant could rely on a defence of contributory negligence. In the circumstances, one false misrepresentation had been made by the defendant and relied upon by the claimant, but the submissions on contributory negligence were rejected.