Latest Cases

Banking – Guarantee. The issue on an appeal from Mauritius was whether it was open to the claimant company to bring a claim in tort against the defendant bank on the basis that awareness on the bank's part of the state of account between the parties to an underlying sale and purchase contract, precluded the bank from claiming an indemnity in respect of advances concerning the price of goods, for which it had not been repaid. The Privy Council, dismissing the company's appeal, held that it was not. Where parties had entered into carefully structured contractual arrangements, involving two separate and autonomous contracts, it was impossible for the law to recognise tortious duties outside and cutting across the terms and performance of those contracts. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to include the care component of his disability living allowance (DLAc) in calculating his income for the purposes of assessing a discretionary house payment. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's policy of always taking into account DLAc as income when assessing awards of discretionary house payment was unlawful, as it failed to consider the Department of Work and Pensions' guidance. Further, it amounted to discrimination, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and s 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The respondent insurer claimed damages for deceit against the appellant, in respect of an earlier personal injury claim which was subsequently settled. It pleaded that the statements as to the extent of the appellant's injuries and his accounts given to the medical experts constituted fraudulent misrepresentations. The judge set aside the settlement agreement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge had been wrong to have held that the respondent could succeed on the basis that, although it had not believed the misrepresentations, its decision as to how much to pay the appellant by way of settlement had been 'influenced' by the fear that the court might do so. 

Libel and slander – Qualified privilege. In the course of a dispute concerning the rental of a property, the defendants wrote a letter that the claimants alleged was libellous. The defendants applied to strike out the claim. The master dismissed the application, and the defendants appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the defence of qualified privilege succeeded. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought an order quashing the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of outline planning permission for a development including 250 dwellings. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had interpreted the relevant policy correctly and applied it lawfully, and her reasons were unimpeachable. Further, the inspector had not misunderstood the policies or overlooked any policy she ought to have considered under para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Her conclusions were not in any way confusing, unclear or contradictory. 

European Union – Air transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding , amongst other things, that art 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators) should be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who had been carried on the basis of a contract between that air carrier and the occupant's employer in order to perform a specific task was a 'passenger' within the meaning of that provision. 

Criminal Law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice handed down a Practice Direction, on 26 March 2015, applying to all proceedings for committal for contempt of court in all courts in England and Wales. The Practice Direction supersedes Practice Guidance: Committal for Contempt ([2013] 1 WLR 1316), dated 3 May 2013; Practice Guidance (Committal Proceedings: Open Court) (No. 2) ([2013] 1 WLR 1753), dated 4 June 2013; and President's Circular: Committals Family Court Practice 2024 at 2976, dated 2 August 2013. 

Civil procedure – Period of notice in summons. Court of Session: Granting a reclaiming motion in an action in which the pursuers' solicitors had prepared a summons specifying a period of notice of 42 days because the first defender resided in USA and they intended to serve the summons by post but service was not effected by post because the defenders instructed a Scottish firm of solicitors to accept service, and the pursuers subsequently attempted to lodge the summons for calling but on the previous day the defenders enrolled a motion contending that the instance had fallen because the summons had not called within a year and a day after the period of notice expired, the court, disagreeing with the Lord Ordinary, held that the period of notice was 42 days, not 21 days, and accordingly the instance had not fallen and the summons could call. 

Land – Acquisition of title by possession. The claimants sought damages for trespass and injunctive relief in respect of the use by the defendant of various parcels of land adjoining his property. The judge found in the claimants' favour and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim based on adverse possession. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal and ordering the re-trial of the adverse possession issue, held, inter alia, that the judge had failed to produce a judgment which contained any adequate reasons for reaching the conclusion which he had. 

European Union – Civil and commercial matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and arts 3(3) and 6 of Directive (EC) 2000/35 and arts 7 and 12 of Directive 2011/7 should be interpreted as not precluding a member state which had made use of the option under art 6(3)(b) of Directive 2000/35 from adopting, during the period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2011/7, legislative provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which were capable of modifying, to the detriment of a creditor of the state, the interest on a debt arising out of the performance of a contract concluded before 8 August 2002.