Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The applicant former prisoner complained of violation of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the United Kingdom's delay in allowing him access to rehabilitative courses and repeated deferral of his Parole Board review hearing. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 5(1) of the Convention, as a real opportunity for rehabilitation had been provided. However, there had been a violation of art 5(4) of the Convention due to a 13-month delay in conducting the review hearing, for which the applicant was awarded €750. 

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. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendant admitted liability for negligence for the claimant's significant brain damage and disabilities sustained during his birth, but the parties disputed the damages to be awarded. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was likely to live to be 63 years. It assessed his earnings but for his disability and determined he would have retired at age 70. The court held that the additional cost of demolishing the existing residence and building a new property was to be borne by the defendant. Further consideration was given to the future management by a deputy and multi-disciplinary team meetings. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant became homeless after having become unable to afford the rent on her property in Westminster. The respondent local authority offered the appellant temporary accommodation in Bletchley, which the appellant refused. Consequently, the respondent ceased to provide accommodation for the appellant. The county court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the authority had not breached its obligations under s 208 of the Housing Act 1996 and the decision had not been unlawful. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deciding that the authority could not show that its offer of the property in Bletchley had been sufficient to discharge its legal obligations under the Act. 

Arbitration – Award. Following an oil spillage, Spain and France had commenced proceedings to recover damages under the Spanish Penal Code. The claimant, as insurer, was involved in those proceedings. The claimant commenced arbitration proceedings in England and contended that Spain and France were bound by the terms of its contract. The claimant then applied to enforce the arbitrator's awards. Both Spain and France unsuccessfully sought to challenge the awards on the basis of no jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the dismissal of those challenges, as the obligation which Spain and France had wished to enforce against the claimant had been governed by English law. It could not be enforced otherwise than by arbitration in accordance with the contract's rules and the states had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts in relation to the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the claimant's application to enforce the award as a judgment. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee claimed constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, less favourable treatment as a part-time worker and breaches of contract by the employer. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed all of the claims, save in respect of a breach of contract complaint. The issue on appeal was whether the tribunal's judgment was tainted for bias where the judge was a governor of another school in the same area as the school involved in the proceedings. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held that the fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was any possibility of bias in the case. 

Minor – Medical treatment. D, who was 15, had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Tourette's Syndrome. He was in the care of a hospital run by the second respondent local authority. A dispute arose as to whether, among other things, it had been within the scope of parental responsibility for the parents to have placed D at the hospital. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, it would be wholly disproportionate to rule that it had not been within the zone of parental responsibility to do so.