Latest Cases

Building – Building operations. The claimants employed the first defendant engineers and the second defendant construction company to enlarge their cellar. The claimants house completely collapsed, and they brought proceedings for negligence. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not acted negligently, but the overwhelming probability that the second defendant had negligently failed to carry out its work with reasonable care and skill was established. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant businessman and Russian citizen brought an action in libel in the United Kingdom in respect of a publication in the jurisdiction of England and Wales by the defendant who was a journalist and lived in Russia. Steps had been taken to serve the proceedings on the defendant in Moscow, but the validity of those steps was disputed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the proceedings could continue. Directions would be needed, and it would be appropriate to consider not just case management but also costs management. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The applicant, a former junior trader at an investment bank in London, sought judicial review of the Financial Conduct Authority's decision to terminate an investigation into him. The Administrative Court dismissed the application and held that the decision to terminate the investigation had been rational. The matters which it had taken into account had been legitimate considerations and it had been for the FCA to determine what weight to give to them. It could not be said that the weight given to any consideration had been manifestly disproportionate. Further, the decision had been lawful. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted a decision to the effect that Eni SpA and Versalis SpA had infringed EU competition law, thereby imposing a fine on them. The General Court of the European Union had confirmed the legality of the Commission's decision, save that it had reduced the fine imposed. Both parties appealed, the Commission requesting that the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) should set aside that judgment in so far as it had reduced the amount of the fine. Eni and Versalis contended that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it had dismissed their joint action at first instance. The Court dismissed both appeals. 

Damages – Personal injury. Whilst working for the defendant employer British Telecom, the claimant was injured. He brought an action for damages against the defendant alleging, inter alia, breach of Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 SI2306/98 and regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, SI 635/1989. The Queen's Bench Division held that the breach had been made out and that the claimant was entitled to damages to be assessed, subject to a reduction of one third in respect of contributory negligence. 

Building contract – Insurance. Following an incident, in which a crane toppled from the concrete supporting structure that had been built by the defendant, the claimant insurance company had sought a declaration of non-liability under the defendant's Miles Smith Building Services Combined Contractors' Liability Policy. The judge had refused to grant the declaration sought. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and made a declaration that: (i) on the proper construction of the foundation clause in the policy, the crane had been a 'superstructure' within the meaning of the policy; (ii) the works carried out by the defendant in constructing the crane base and installing the dowel bars had been foundation works within the meaning of the policy; and (iii) any liability that might be established against the defendant in respect of the damage to the crane itself was a liability excluded under the foundation clause. 

European Union – Value Added Tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT on the supply of digital books (or electronic books), France had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 96 and 98 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), as amended, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 282/2011 (laying down implementing measures for Directive (EC) 2006/112). 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and others (the applicants) against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which the General Court had dismissed their action for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt), in so far as those acts concerned the applicants. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the submission that Rodriguez (Flexibility Policy) ([2013] UKUT 42 (IAC)) applied at the date of the decision was totally without merit. Further, the claimant had not submitted a specified document, but a document which had not included the mandatory information and the Secretary of State had been under no obligation to make an enquiry of the claimant as to why he had not done so. 

Police – Complaints against police. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash an Independent Police Complaints Commission's (the IPCC) decision to reopen the investigation into D's allegation he had been strangled during his arrest, on the basis it was functus officio. D sought to quash the conclusions found in the IPCC's original report. The Divisional Court held that the IPCC had power to seek further information in respect of a report it considered defective. Further, errors of reasoning in the report rendered it irrational. Accordingly, the Commissioner's claim would be dismissed, but D's claim would be allowed.