Latest Cases

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. 

Criminal law – Costs. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that s 16A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the subsequent statutory scheme was incompatible with arts 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that s 16A of the Act was not incompatible with the Convention on account of its failure to enable acquitted defendants in the Crown Court to recover their privately incurred legal costs in cases committed or sent between 1 October 2012 and 27 January 2014, nor was its present iteration. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned two separate trusts. The claimant brought proceedings concerning the correct interpretation of a deed of appointment made under one of the trusts. The first defendant counterclaimed for declarations that he was entitled to an absolute interest in a fund under another trust and that the trustees were estopped from reducing or cutting down that interest 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the employers. A journalist from the first respondent newspaper sought access to the employee's witness statement. The employment tribunal granted the request in respect of the whole of the statement, which it ruled had been submitted in evidence and was available for inspection. The respondent appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had not applied the correct test to determine whether or not parts of the employee's witness statement had been admitted in evidence for the purposes of r 44 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, so that they were open for inspection to the public. The matter was remitted for redetermination. 

Insolvency – Jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned an application, on behalf of the administrators for each of the applicant companies, for a declaration in relation to each company that the centre of main interests (COMI) was England and Wales, within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings). The Companies Court held that the legislation made it clear that the presumption was that the COMI of the company would be the state of its registered office, which was Cyprus. However, there was sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption and the declarations sought would be granted. 

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. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant was convicted of assault by penetration, two counts of sexual assault and one count of rape. In his summing up, the judge had given a direction pursuant to s 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in respect of the failure to mention two facts prior to trial which the defendant had relied upon. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed his appeal and held that, although it was doubtful that the judge should have given a direction in respect of the defence case statement, it had not affected the safety of the conviction. 

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. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimants, B and L, had formerly made compromise agreements concluding claims against the defendant company, NGN, which had published the News of the World. They brought new actions against NGN. The Chancery Division held that the agreements, properly interpreted, covered the elements of the new claims relating to phone hacking. B's claim would be struck out and L's claim would be struck out insofar as it related to phone hacking. 

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. In claims by many hundreds of Iraqi civilians against the defendant Ministry of Defence for damages for their allegedly unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces, the preliminary issue was whether the claims were barred by an applicable statute of limitations. The Queen's Bench Division held that, by reason of Coalition Provisional Authority Order No 17 (CPA Order 17), the time limit was suspended indefinitely. Further, s 2(3) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 did not apply to disregard the suspension of the limitation period resulting from the effect of CPA Order 17.