Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Following the withdrawal of the claimant's case for damages for personal injury after cross-examination, the defendant applied for an order enforcing costs in their favour on the basis that the court could make a finding on the basis of various inconsistencies in the evidence, that the claim was fundamentally dishonest. The county court agreed on the evidence that the bringing of the case had been fundamentally dishonest. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Thai national's application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom was refused on the basis of an unspent criminal conviction. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, inter alia, the Secretary of State had been entitled to take the new Immigration Rules into account, notwithstanding that the application had been made prior their entry into force. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted perversely or irrationally. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Clinical negligence. The claimant received £13,192.99 in general damages following a settlement when she suffered a posterior capsular rupture with vitreous loss. The claimant had approximately one year of blurred vision in the eye, extended period of floaters, a fat cigar in the visual field as well as 18 months of inflammation in the eye and the requirement for an additional surgical procedure. She was likely to need to use drops on and off for the rest of her life. 

Company – Administrator. The applicant creditors of a company in administration applied for orders that: (i) the remuneration of the respondent administrators was excessive and should be either disallowed entirely or reduced; and (ii) that the administrators should pay the costs of the application personally and not as an expense of the administration. The Companies Court rejected the contention that the administrators, appointed under Insolvency Act 1986, could not or should not have made the statement as to the statutory purpose, as required under para 29(3)(b) of Sch B1 to the Act, which had led to their appointment. Further, the argument that they should not be entitled to any remuneration at all for their services was rejected. Once the decision to appoint administrators had been made, the responsibility on the prospective administrator in considering whether the statement as to the statutory purpose could be made was to look ahead at what would or might happen during the administration if he was appointed, and not behind at the motives which might have led the directors to choose to make the appointment. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 4(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr and Mrs Matei and SC Volksbank România SA (Volksbank) concerning allegedly unfair terms in consumer credit contracts providing, first, for a 'risk charge' applied by Volksbank and, secondly, authorising the latter to alter the rate of interest unilaterally under certain conditions. 

Solicitor – Solicitor and client. The claimant sought damages against the defendant firm of solicitors, which had acted for him in the proposed purchase of a property in 2010. The proposed vendor did not complete and was subsequently made bankrupt, and the claimant lost his deposit. The claimant submitted that, having advised of the risk of insolvency, the solicitor who had advised him had had a duty to take steps to explore the extent of that risk, by making searches that would have revealed the existence of the bankruptcy petition. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the solicitor had not been under any duty to make the suggested searches prior to exchange of contracts. The risks had been adequately explained to a person of the claimant's experience and he had, in fact, understood the advice he had been given. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Powers of search. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by two appellants who were indicted on a charge of being concerned in the supply of cannabis, and whose preliminary pleas objecting to the admission of evidence as to the finding of bars of cannabis resin in their car were repelled by the sheriff, the court held that the sheriff correctly found the search to have been unlawful because the police officers considered that they were acting under a power conferred by s 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, when that section conferred no such power, and that the sheriff was entitled to conclude that that illegality or irregularity could be excused. 

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, amongst other things, that art 9(2)(b) and (c) of Directive (EC) 2004/83 should be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, it did not appear that the measures incurred by a soldier because of his refusal to perform military service, such as the imposition of a prison sentence or discharge from the army, could be considered, having regard to the legitimate exercise, by that state, of its right to maintain an armed force, so disproportionate or discriminatory as to amount to acts of persecution for the purpose of those provisions. It was, however, for the national authorities to ascertain whether that was indeed the case. 

European Union – Value Added Tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the Portuguese special procedure applicable to abusive practices in the field of taxation was applicable to VAT, provided that the EU principles of effectiveness and equivalence were not breached. 

Tort – Assault and battery. There was a claim before the court arising out of the serious injuries suffered by the claimant as a result of an incident where the claimant was thrown from the bonnet of a moving car driven by the first defendant. The first defendant had then fled the scene. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim finding that on the evidence, the claimant had proved that he had been injured by the first defendant's deliberate acts in first driving a very short distance towards him and causing him to end up on the bonnet, then secondly carrying him on the bonnet backwards and forwards and finally steering the car causing him to be thrown off the bonnet.