Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The claimant managing director of a company in administration brought an action against the defendants companies house and the registrar of companies in respect of incorrect information published on the company register. It was the claimant's case that the publication of the information was a breach of duty of care which had caused the company to go into administration. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the claimant's case applying the assumption of responsibility and the three stage Caparo test. 

Immigration – Refugee. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the three appeals where an issue arose as to whether, notwithstanding the defendants' guilty pleas, their convictions were unsafe by reason of the failure of their legal representatives to advise them adequately or at all of the availability of a defence under s 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and whether, had they been so advised, there was a reasonable prospect that they would have been able to successfully advance a defence under that section at trial. On the facts, two of the appeals were allowed, and the third was dismissed. 

Police – Negligence. The claimants were the family and estate of a murdered woman. The claimants had issued proceedings against two police forces in negligence and a failure to protect life in breach of art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division had granted summary judgment on the claim in negligence and had allowed the art 2 claim to proceed. The Supreme Court upheld that decision and confirmed that there was no exception to the ordinary application of common law principles to provide protection for victims of domestic violence and/or to extend the common law in harmony with the obligations of the police under arts 2 and 3 of the Convention. Further, the art 2 claim involved questions of fact that should properly be determined at trial. 

Insurance – Property insurance. Following a fire at property which the claimant company stated that it let or managed, the defendant resisted the claimant's insurance claim on the grounds that it had had no insurable interest and that there had been misrepresentation and non-disclosure. The Mercantile Court held that, on the evidence, the claimant was entitled to a declaration that it was entitled to be indemnified by the defendant in the terms of the policy. 

Solicitor – Retainer. At a time when the claimant had had capacity, she had entered into a conditional fee agreement with a firm of solicitors in respect of medical negligence proceedings that she had issued. She subsequently lost capacity. She succeeded in her claim and her solicitors submitted their bill of costs in order to seek recovery of those from the defendant. The defendant disputed the costs that related to the period when the claimant had been acting through the deputy appointed on her behalf. The regional costs judge, who had accepted the defendant's submissions, was overturned by the High Court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal and held that the parties had to have contemplated that the claimant might lose capacity and that instructions could be given on her behalf. In all the circumstances, it could not have been the intention of the parties that the claimant had to give instructions personally and her supervening incapacity had not rendered the contract incapable of performance. 

Company – Winding up. The appeal concerned the question whether, when there was both an appeal against a VAT assessment pending in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the tribunal) and a winding-up petition pending in the Companies Court, the tribunal or the Companies Court was the appropriate forum to determine whether the petition debt was disputed in good faith on substantial grounds. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, when the tribunal had reached a conclusion on such an issue, that decision was normally likely to be a compelling factor in the Companies Court's exercise of discretion. That discretion was not, however, completely abrogated by the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It need not defer to the tribunal in every case, though it might often choose to do so. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 42 months' imprisonment imposed for an offence of wounding with intent contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where there had been two offences over a period of time. 

European Union – Taxation. The Chancery Division considered consequential matters and made orders further to an earlier judgment in a test case by Prudential Assurance Company Ltd concerning the legality of the United Kingdom's rules on the taxation of dividends received by UK-resident companies on shareholdings which were held by them as investments and allocated to their pension business and life assurance business. 

Injunction – Ex parte injunction. The wife of a convicted sex offender was photographed aggressively whilst leaving her home with her son. She sought an ex parte injunction against persons unknown under the Protection form Harassment Act 1997. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the injunction under those terms but did not restrain harassment by publication. 

Child – Care. Following a decision by the local authority for care proceedings in respect of a family resident in England, the father removed the children to the Republic of Ireland. Following a hearing in order to determine habitual residence for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and the Matters of Parental Responsibility) the Family Division held that the father's actions in removing the children to Ireland had not changed their habitual residence from England to Ireland.