Latest Cases

Practice – Commercial Court. The Commercial Court considered the claimants' particulars of claim, which ran to 96 pages. The court held that, owing to the length and content of the particulars, they would be struck out, the costs of drafting them would be disallowed and fresh particulars would be drawn up complying with Appendix 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Commercial Court Guide (the Guide). The court stressed the importance of the making of adverse costs orders in cases of flagrant non-compliance with the recommendations of the Guide. 

Family proceedings – Costs. Private law family proceedings were taking place in which the sperm donor father, who was registered on the birth certificate, sought contact with the child after the relationship between him and the two parents had broken down. The child had been born into a relationship between two women. In the proceedings, the child was in receipt of legal aid funding, but none of the adults was. The two women sought a costs allowance to be paid by the father. The Family Division, having considered the circumstances of the parties, ordered that the father pay 80% of the claims of each of the women and 80% of all future professional costs in respect of therapeutic work. The costs of expert evidence were to be paid for by the child, charged to his legal aid certificate. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Medical Council in her absence, finding misconduct and deciding to erase her from the register. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal held that the FPP ought to have decided to proceed to hear the witnesses, but only to decide the facts and to seek to notify the appellant, with a view to her attending on the issue of dishonesty. It should have considered, before imposing any sanction whether attempts should have been made to contact the appellant to enable her to put forward any mitigation. 

Statutory duty – Breach. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant employer in respect of a personal injury sustained at work. The judge rejected the claimant's account of the accident, but was persuaded that the law compelled him to find for the claimant, and that he was 'prohibited' from making any finding of contributory negligence, as a result of the circumstance that the defendant was in breach of its statutory obligations to undertake a risk assessment and reduce the risk of injury. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the claim. It held, inter alia, that although the defendant had arguably been in breach of its duty, the accident had not fallen within the ambit of the risk which the defendant had arguably been required to assess. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. In a defamation claim brought by the claimant against the defendant newspapers the Queen's Bench Division decided as a preliminary issue the meaning of the articles complained of. 

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The defendant local authority made an experimental traffic order and subsequently made it permanent (the RTO). The claimant, as a representative of a group opposed to the change, applied, under para 35 of Sch 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for an order quashing the RTO. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been a clear breach of the obligation to hold a public inquiry and, as a result, a failure to comply with a relevant requirement in force before the RTO could be made. The omission had not been an inconsequential failure, as it had created obvious prejudice for the claimant's group. 

Libel and slander – Damages. In a claim for libel the claimant sought damages for defamatory postings in the United Kingdom in relation to his law practice located in the United States. The defendant admitted that the libellous postings had come from his account but denied that he had been the one to post the contents. The Queen's Bench Division held that the likelihood was that in the absence of any convincing explanation to the contrary, the posting from the defendant's account was authored or authorised by him. The postings had caused damage to the claimants and both were therefore was entitled to damages. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to two and-a-half years' imprisonment for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in circumstances where he had bitten off a sizeable segment of the victim door supervisor's ear, leaving him permanently disfigured. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division increased the sentence to one of four and-a-half years' imprisonment, holding, among other things, that the judge had imposed a sentence which had fallen unjustifiably outside the range identified by the Sentencing Council. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered applications for contact by the parents of R, who were separated. R's mother wished to go to work in Hong Kong and to take R with her. The court held that, on the evidence, the mother would let R's opportunities for continuing and developing his relationship with the father wither. The mother's application was dismissed and the father's application for extended contact allowed. 

Local authority – Residential care home. The claimant care home owners and operators sought judicial review of the defendant local health boards' (LHBs) decisions setting the funded nursing care rate. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, in restricting the services which s 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 prohibited local authorities from providing to those individual tasks which, by virtue of their expertise and experience, only a registered nurse could perform, the defendants' approach had been fundamentally flawed.