Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A mother appealed against a shared residence order and subsequent residence order in favour of the father that had been made in respect of a child. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed her appeal as, on the evidence, the mother's complaints of undue process during the proceedings were not proved. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant, an arborist, hired a platform from the defendant in order to fell a tree. The platform collapsed and the claimant sustained serious injury. The claimant brought a claim in, inter alia, contract. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the claim and ordered judgment for the claimant with damages to be assessed. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive (EC) 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the legal protection of databases) should be interpreted as meaning that it was not applicable to a database which was not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that arts 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive did not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations on its use by third parties, without prejudice to the applicable national law. 

Negligence – Causation. The deceased suffered an asthma attack and called the ambulance. Although the crew attended the deceased, the deceased died and his wife brought a claim in negligence against the defendant NHS Trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been negligence and that negligence had caused the claimant's death. 

Contract – Charterparty. The charterers of four vessels claimed damages from the first to the fourth defendant registered owners of the vessels, alleging breach of charterparties by withdrawing the vessels from service. The charterers contended that the charter parties had been fixed by the fifth defendant, as agent, on behalf of the owners. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the main claim, held that there was no evidence that the fifth defendant had been authorised to conclude the charterparties on behalf of the owners. The charterers succeeded on the alternative claim against the fifth defendant, which was held liable in damages for breach of an implied warranty of authority. 

Telecommunications – Regulatory bodies. The claimants sought judicial review of actions taken by the defendant for breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the Code). The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant's actions had been unlawful and unfair. They had not complied with art 3 of Directive (EC) 2000/31, in particular, because the measures had been disproportionate in that they had gone beyond the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the objective of protecting customers. The claim would be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division for issues of causation and quantification of damages to be determined. 

Libel and slander – Practice. In a libel action, the defendant sought to amend his defence at a late stage. The claimant opposed the application. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application to amend on the basis that there had been unjustifiable delay and the case was a new case. 

Easement – Right of way. The proceedings concerned a neighbour dispute between the claimants and defendants, in which the judge made declarations as to the boundary of the land owned by the claimants and the land owned by the second defendant, and as to the claimants' entitlement to a vehicular right of way over a way, in so far as it was in the ownership of the second defendant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendants' appeal on the boundary issue, but dismissed it on the right of way issue. 

Civil procedure – Summary decree: Court of Session: Refusing an apppeal in an action for payment of solicitors' fees against a sheriff principal's refusal of an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor dismissing the defender's counterclaim on the pursuer's motion for summary decree, the court held that the sheriff was entitled, on the averments and the other material relied on, to conclude that the counterclaim had no real prospect of success, and the sheriff principal did not err in his approach to the appeal before him. 

Practice – Striking out. After an unsuccessful attempt to finance the building of a hotel, the claimants were faced with the repossession of their house. They brought proceedings, claiming that the defendant firm, which had provided them with advice, had conspired to destroy documents that proved that its advice had been negligent. The defendants applied to strike out the claims. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the claims were hopeless and the application would be allowed.