Latest Cases

Negligence – Duty of care. There was a preliminary issue before the court regarding whether or not the defendant Secretary of State owed a non-delegable duty of care to the claimant so as to render it liable to the claimant in respect of any negligence acts or omissions on the part of those providing medical care at an immigration retention centre. The Queen's Bench Division held that all the elements of non-delegable duty had been made out and further it was fair and reasonable to conclude that the defendant owed the claimant a non-delegable duty. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. L was 93 and had severe dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Care and safety arrangements had been made for her by her daughters. The Court of Protection considered whether, among other things, the care arrangements for L amounted to a deprivation of her liberty. The court held that, on the evidence, there had been no deprivation of L's liberty. 

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. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that with regard to procurement contracts for the provision of services of an intellectual nature, training and consultancy, art 53(1)(a) of Directive (EC) 2004/18 did not preclude the contracting authority from using a criterion enabling evaluation of the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract and which took into consideration the composition of the team and the experience and academic and professional background of the team members. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, then aged 16, was convicted of murder and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, with a minimum term of nine years less 31 days spent on remand. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court held that the offender had shown outstanding progress throughout his time in custody, in particular, by his receipt of a Koestler award by a prison arts charity with a Braille story for children. Accordingly, on the basis of the offender's behaviour in prison and the exceptional progress he had made, his minimum term would be reduced by one year. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant, a crematoria operator with a pending application for planning permission for a crematorium, sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant the interested party permission for a crematorium and associated development. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the fact that the claimant's proposed site was an alternative, which had not required derogation from the duty to safeguard a protected species, had been a material consideration, which should have been brought to the authority's attention. It could not be found that the decision would have been the same even if the error had been corrected and the permission would be quashed. 

Landlord and tenant – Commercial lease – Tenant's repairing obligations. Court of Session: In a dispute as to the nature and extent of a tenant's repairing obligations under a lease of office premises, the lease having expired and the tenant having given up possession, the court held that on a proper construction of the lease the landlord was not entitled to payment of a sum equal to the cost of putting the premises into the relevant state of repair regardless of whether it actually intended to carry out any such work, and the tenant was not obliged to replace at expiry of the lease all items of plant and equipment on the premises at the date of entry, whatever their condition; the obligation was restricted to replacing such items as were missing, broken, worn, damaged or destroyed. 

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. 

Company – Merger. The claimant companies sought to carry out business in Mexico. The Mexican tax authority challenged a scheme used by the claimants, which they had adopted on the advice of the defendant. The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant for, among other things, negligence. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, although the defendant had acted negligently, the second claimant had acted unreasonably in abandoning proceedings that it would have won, which would have avoided tax losses, and so its tax recovery claim failed. 

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.