Latest Cases

Hospital – Liability for negligence of members of staff. The claimant issued proceedings, contending that the defendant NHS Foundation Trust had handled her birth process negligently, resulting in her having a limited range of motion in her right arm. The Queen's Bench Division held that negligence was established, as the decision not to proceed to caesarean section at 13:50 had lacked logical force. However, the claimant had not established that the delivery had been negligently handled. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants entered into loan arrangements with the first defendant bank's predecessor. They fell into arrears and the bank subsequently appointed receivers. The claimants brought claims alleging that the bank was in breach of contract by appointing receivers. The claimants further alleged that the receivers were in breach of duty in failing to secure best price for properties. In allowing summary judgment against the claimants, the Chancery Division held that there was no evidence of the bank giving up its rights under various security documents, or varying them. The bank had had the right to appoint receivers on an unsatisfied demand. Further, the claim against the receivers had to fail on the facts. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Nigerian asylum seeker, challenging a decision refusing to accept that he had made a fresh claim, the court held that the petitioner's further submissions did not introduce material which was significantly different from that which had been previously considered. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. A wall dividing the claimants' and the defendants' gardens collapsed. The claimants brought proceedings. The judge ordered, inter alia, that the parties owed to each other a measured duty of care in respect of the consequences attendant upon the collapse of the wall and that, in respect of any engineering or other solution which might be devised to deal with the consequences, the contribution of the defendants was to be a rateable proportion of the cost of such solution. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendants' appeal, held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been entitled to have found that there had been measured duties of care on both sides, but it had not been just and reasonable to have imposed on the defendants a liability to contribute to the cost of some unspecified engineering solution. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The applicant serving life prisoner complained that his whole life order violated art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 3 of the Convention. The power to release, under s 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, exercised in the manner delineated by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in particular, in Attorney General's Reference (No 69 of 2013), R v McLoughlin; R v Newell ([2014] 3 All ER 73), was sufficient to comply with the requirements of art 3 of the Convention. 

The petitioners were both experienced midwives employed by the employer health board. Both were practising Roman Catholics who objected to 'delegating, supervising and/or supporting staff to participate in and provide care to patients throughout the termination process'. The question was the meaning of the words 'to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection' as set out in s 4 of the Abortion Act 1967. The Supreme Court held that it was unlikely that, in enacting the conscience clause, Parliament had in mind the host of ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with those acts. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant bank brought a claim against its former employee, the fourth defendant, for breaching his equitable and contractual duties to the bank by granting unauthorised banking facilities to the first defendant company which later went into administration. The employee, in his defence, contended that a demand by the bank calling in the debt had ratified his letter granting the loan facility and had waived the bank's rights against him. The Chancery Division, in granting the bank summary judgment, held that the bank had been entitled to recover its money by issuing a demand and it had not waived its debt in so doing. Accordingly, there was no reasonable prospect of the defence succeeding. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that concurrent sentences of seven months' imprisonment for drugs offences committed whilst in prison had been unduly lenient, and ordered that each sentence should run consecutively to existing sentences being served. 

Bank – Contract. The parties made a contract, whereby the claimants, Decura, would exclusively supply the defendant company, UBS with financial products and services. A dispute arose out of Decura's asserted right to terminate pursuant to cl 20 of the contract. The Commercial Court, in finding for UBS, held that the word 'material' would be defined as 'substantial' or 'insignificant', and that, on the wording of the contract, there had been no cessation of a part of UBS' business that proved Decura's case. 

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant appealed against the decision of the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council's Fitness to Practice Committee (the panel), finding charges against him proved and removing him from the register. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no serious procedural or other irregularity which cast any doubt on the fairness of the hearing. Further, the panel had not erred in law in deciding that essentially factual issue against the appellant and it could not be said that it had been wrong.