Latest Cases

Damages – Personal injury. The deceased died of a subarachnoid haemorrhage as a result of admitted negligence on the part of the defendant Trust. The defendant settled claims brought by her dependants and by her husband for nervous shock The claimant was the deceased's sister. She brought a claim as a secondary victim on the basis that she experienced nervous shock as a result of the events that transpired. The Queen's Bench Division found that in the circumstances, the sight of the deceased could not be regarded as a 'horrifying event'; nor was it sudden or unexpected. There was a series of different events that gave rise to an accumulation during that period of gradual assaults on the claimant's mind and resulted in her psychiatric illness. 

Limitation of actions – Prescription. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers, who had instructed the defenders, a firm of solicitors, to serve notices to quit on a tenant to terminate agricultural holdings tenancies over three fields, averred that by serving defective notices to quit the defenders were in breach of an implied term of their contract with the pursuers to exercise the degree of knowledge, skill and care expected of a reasonably competent solicitor, the court sustained the defenders' plea-in-law that any obligation on the defenders to make reparation to the pursuers had prescribed and pronounced decree of absolvitor. 

Contract – Commission. A dispute had arisen between the parties as to commission payable by the insurance companies to the union in circumstances where insurance had been sold to union members who had approached the insurers independently from marketing material promoted by the unions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his construction of the commission arrangements in the agreements between the insurers and the union. 

Criminal evidence – Cross-examination. The appellant appealed, by way of case stated, against his conviction for assault. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, gave guidance on the role of a solicitor appointed to cross-examine a witness, under s 38(3) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. It further held that the justices had correctly refused the solicitor's application to adduce bad character evidence concerning the victim and intervened in the cross-examination designed to elicit evidence relating to his failed bad character application. 

Shipping – Charterparty. In a shipping dispute concerning a contract made subject to the GAFTA78 terms, the GAFTA board of appeal made an award which involved findings relating to cl 17 of GAFTA78. The Commercial Court considered three questions about the interpretation of cl 17 of GAFTA78. As a result of its findings, the award would be remitted for further consideration by the appeal board. 

Environment – Site of special scientific interest. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Welsh Ministers' decision to adopt a plan for a new stretch of the M4 motorway across an area comprising several sites of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Welsh Government had not failed to consider reasonable alternatives. Further, it had not failed to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora and fauna. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Commercial Court considered two applications for committal regarding contempts of court allegedly made by G and J in the course of proceedings. The court held that G, who had made admissions, would be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, which would be suspended, provided that he repaid certain monies. It held that the contempts alleged on the part of J were proved, and that a sentence of 20 months imprisonment would be made in her case. 

Sentence – Length of sentence. The offender was sentenced to a total of three and-a-half years' imprisonment for eight sexual offences committed against a 12 year old boy over a five or six month period. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, in the circumstances, the sentence had been unduly lenient and substituted a sentence of five-and-a-half years' imprisonment. 

Criminal evidence – Identity. The defendant, L, was jointly convicted of murder as part of a gang related attack carried out by a group of youths. L had been recognised from CCTV footage by several police officers who worked in the community. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed L's appeal against conviction and held that, neither the quality of the images, nor breaches of Code D, Pt B issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, had required the recognition evidence to be excluded from the jury. 

Elections – Local government. The applicant sought to challenge the election of a candidate in local government elections. His petition was struck out on the basis of failure to comply with a technical rule in s 136 of the Representation of People Act 1983 that At the time of presenting an election petition or within three days afterwards the petitioner shall give security for all costs which may become payable by him to any witness summoned on his behalf or to any respondent. The applicant appealed the striking out of the petition. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the appeal on the basis that the requirement in the 1983 Act was clear and it had not been complied with.