Latest Cases

Fatal accident – Damages. The claimant's husband, who had been in England at the relevant time, had been killed when hit by a car driven by the defendant. The family were Italian and lived in Italy, and the husband's employer was an Italian company. The defendant admitted two thirds liability. The claimant sought, by way of 'subrogated claims', to recover from the defendant benefits that she had been paid, or was due to be paid, by the Italian Workers Compensation Authority and her husband's employer and for which she was contractually obliged to seek recovery. The Queen's Bench Division, on the trial of a preliminary issue, held that the subrogated claims were not recoverable by operation of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 864/2007 (on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) (Rome II) and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. 

Adoption – Payment for adoption. The applicants had paid a surrogate mother, T, to have a child for them. They submitted that the court should dispense with the need for T to be served with a parental order, as they had taken reasonable steps to try to locate her. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, the requirement for service on T would be dispensed with, and that certain payments made to T and the surrogacy clinic would be authorised. 

Practice – Summary judgment and strike out. In the course of divorce proceedings, a flat owned by the parties was sold. The husband, T, claimed that, among other things, the flat had not been properly marketed, and that it had not been sold for the best price available. The wife applied to strike out the claim. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, an essential ingredient of T's case had already been raised and decided, and he was issue estopped from raising the same point again. Summary judgment would be granted to the wife. 

Fish – Salmon and trout. The claimant leasehold owner of a right to fish for salmon at Lydney in the estuary of the River Severn sought judicial review of the defendant Environment Agency's decision to reduce his catch from approximately 600 per year to 30 and less. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the only rational conclusion was that there had been no basis for drawing any conclusion as to the numbers of salmon caught at Lydney that would otherwise spawn in the River Wye, as provided in the report on which the Environment Agency had relied in making its decision. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Following an application by the patient's son, VL, to be a deputy for the patient (his father), the Court of Protection granted the application. In the order appointing VL as deputy, the court was to require VL to obtain and maintain security of £550,000. VL further said that he was prepared to send his sisters a report on his management of PL's property and finances. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 4(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/104 (on temporary agency work) should be interpreted as meaning that: – the provision was addressed only to the competent authorities of the member states, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work were justified, and, therefore, – the provision did not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which were not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of art 4(1). 

Employment – Contract of service. The appellant's husband was found by the second respondent employer to have committed suicide, depriving her of the death benefits provided for in his employment contract. The Supreme Court held that a decision that an employee had committed suicide was not a rational or reasonable decision, unless the employer had had it clearly in mind that suicide was such an improbability that cogent evidence was required to form the positive opinion that it had taken place. In the present case, there was no sufficiently cogent evidence to justify the respondents in forming the positive opinion that the husband had committed suicide. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The victim, who had a substantial portfolio of assets, was murdered after befriending the first defendant. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing his appeal against conviction for murder, held that nothing had occurred which would lead the court to conclude that the conviction was unsafe. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant's application for asylum had been refused, he had been returned to Mongolia and he had served a sentence of imprisonment. He escaped from prison and returned to the United Kingdom and claimed asylum again. He gave evidence regarding the treatment he had sustained while in prison. He was granted asylum. The Queen's Bench Division, during a trial of preliminary issues related to the claimant's application for damages, held that Council Directive (EC) 2004/38 and Council Directive (EC) 2005/85 did confer rights on the individual. Whether the breaches alleged in respect of those rights were such as to be 'sufficiently serious' so as to give rise to a claim for reparation under EU law was not made out at the preliminary hearing. Further, the breaches that were shown were not directly causative of the damage sustained. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The deceased had suffered from depression. He was referred by his GP to a doctor at the defendant NHS trust for treatment. The doctor assessed the deceased as suffering from bipolar affective disorder, advised him on a course of treatment and discharged him back to the care of the GP. Shortly thereafter, the deceased committed suicide. The claimants, including the deceased's widow, contended that the defendant was liable for breach of duty. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that breach of duty had not been established. The doctor's care had been of an acceptable standard and there was no evidence to indicate that, had she offered another outpatient appointment, the deceased's death would have been prevented.