Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant commenced proceedings in tort and contract, alleging that his shares in a company had been undervalued as a result of a conspiracy by the defendants. The defendants successfully applied to strike out the claim, and the claimant appealed. The Chancery Division held that the Chief Master had erred in finding that the claimant's statement of case did not disclose a reasonable ground for bringing the claim, and that it had not been appropriate to dispose of the claimant's claim in deceit summarily. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant owned a patent, referred to as a 'mailer', which was a form, letter or other type of business communication, which was folded, sealed with an adhesive and then sent through the post. It alleged that the defendants had infringed the patent by making and disposing mailers falling within the claims of the patent. The proceedings were stayed in respect of the second to fifth defendants. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held, in respect of the first defendant, that the patent was invalid for lack of novelty over one item of prior art and for lack of inventive step over two items of prior art. 

Income tax – Discounts. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) affirmed in part a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had upheld the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to amend the taxpayers' self-assessment tax returns on the basis that the profits made by the taxpayers on fixed rate notes stripped of interest coupons amounted to a discount of an income nature. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant was a young child that had been taken by his parents to the defendant GP in an out of hours service. It was the parents case that at that point the claimant was presenting with very serious symptoms. No immediate referral to hospital was made by the defendant. Later, the claimant was taken by his parents to the hospital where, he was diagnosed as suffering from pneumococcal meningitis. The disease caused him to suffer very severe neurological damage as a result of which he was severely, and permanently, disabled. The claimant, through his father as litigation friend, brought a case in negligence and causation against the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence, the defendant was not liable to the claimant and that there had to be judgment in the action for the defendant. 

Civil procedure – Contempt. Court of Session: In a petition to the nobile officium, asking the court to quash a sheriff's interlocutor which found that two social workers had failed to obey an earlier interlocutor by not making two children available for contact with their mother from 11 July until 22 August 2013, and that they were guilty of contempt of court, the court held that the sheriff had not made any findings which justified her conclusion that the social workers' conduct was a contemptuous affront to the dignity and authority of the court, and it followed that her interlocutor should be quashed. 

Defamation – Relevancy and specification of averments. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuers averred that the defenders had published an article which was defamatory of them in their newspaper, the court held that as a matter of law the article was not capable of bearing the meanings the pursuers contended for, and the defenders' first plea in law, which was a challenge to the relevancy and specification of the pursuers' averments, fell to be sustained. 

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. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Chinese national issued proceedings against the defendant Secretary of State for unlawful detention between 2 March 2012 and 17 June 2014. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the claimant's detention had been unlawful from 16 July 2013 for breach of public law, but the claimant was only entitled to nominal damages until 2 May 2014, as her condition could be satisfactorily managed in detention. However, as thereafter the detention had breached the second principle in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983), she was entitled to damages to reflect that. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee had claimed unfair and/or wrongful dismissal, arising out of a resignation which had been found to have been made without any notice, and where there had been no repudiatory breach by the employer. Accordingly, the employee was not entitled to any award of compensation for unfair dismissal, nor for wrongful dismissal, and had no legitimate claim for moneys due in the notice period. The employee withdrew her claim for notice pay. The employment tribunal, however, awarded £1,800 at the hearing because the employer had not provided a statement of terms and conditions of employment under s 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and £150 as a fee reimbursement because the employee had partially won her case. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employer's appeal, held that the employee had not justified claim; she had lost her case; and there had been no jurisdiction to make an award in respect of the admitted failure of the employer to observe s 1 of the Act.