Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant developed a business venture whereby it sold options to sports fans which enabled them to purchase a ticket to future sporting events. The claimant brought claims for damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation against the defendant football club, alleging that it had, in breach of an agreement, failed to provide it access to a number of tickets for the 2012/2013 FA Cup semi-final and final. The Chancery Division, allowing the claim in part, held that a representation made by the defendant and relied upon by the claimant had been false and was actionable under the terms of the agreement. The claim succeeded, save in relation to allegations based on fraud. 

Highway – Classification. The claimant issued proceedings, questioning the validity of an order, substituting a bridleway for a byway open to all traffic (BOAT) with respect to a lane. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State could properly, as a matter of judgment, have found the lane to be a BOAT or a bridleway and his decision had not been wrong. Accordingly, it was impossible to submit that the evidence had been such that the only reasonable conclusion had been that the lane had been open to vehicular traffic. 

Building contract – Contract administrator. The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the interpretation of the JCT standard building contract, without quantities, revision 2 (2009). The Technology and Construction Court held that the proper construction of cl 1.9.3 of the contract was that, following the issue of the final certificate, the contract provided for just one set of proceedings, started within 28 days, in which that final certificate could be challenged. The only exception to that was if the original proceedings had been commenced by way of adjudication: then, the position was governed by cl 1.9.4 of the contract, although a protective arbitration notice or claim form would also be permissible, provided that, too, had been issued within the 28 days. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of one year imprisonment for fraud. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, for the appellant to go to Poland to be released in a matter of a very few weeks would be wholly disproportionate, bearing in mind the 14 years that had elapsed since the offence and, more particularly, that he had not gone without punishment because he had served a substantial term of imprisonment in the United Kingdom. 

Shipping – Cargo. The parties contracted for the shipping of Russian grain. However, during loading, the grain was found to be of unsuitable quality. The buyers appealed from an award of the GAFTA board of appeal. The Commercial Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, among other things, the board of appeal had been wrong in law to ignore the totality of the evidence bearing on the question of whether the cargo had been contractually compliant. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants who had been detained and subjected to control orders and to asset-freezing orders brought claims against the defendants on the basis of documents discovered after the fall of Colonel Qadhafi in October 2011 in the offices of his security services. The defendants applied to dismiss and/or strike out the claims; and in the alternative for a stay. The Queen's Bench Division largely dismissed the applications. 

Contract – Public contract. The claimant had unsuccessfully bid for a contract in relation to the decommissioning of nuclear installations that had been put out to tender by the defendant. The defendant announced the winning bidder and the standstill period commenced, during which time the claimant expressed its concerns about the adequacy of the procurement process. After the contract had been entered into, the claimant issued proceedings. On a trial of preliminary issues, the Technology and Construction Court held that the court had no discretion not to make an award of damages if the claim were proved. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following their separation, the mother and father of three children were engaged in long-running private law proceedings in respect of the care of their children, in particular, the amount of time that they should spend with their father. The judge made an order, pursuant to s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, against the father, prohibiting further applications for a period of three years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been a need for a significant period, not a very long period, but a significant period, of absence of litigation, or at least control of litigation through the filter of s 91(14) of the Act, and three years was not a period that could be properly challenged in the context of the present case.