Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. During the course of his working life, the deceased was exposed to asbestos. He died of lung cancer and claims were brought against six defendants. The parties agreed that the deceased's exposure to asbestos over the course of his working life could be quantified and that the total exposed 'share' of the defendants was 35.2%. The issue was whether each defendant was liable in damages in full or for only a portion of the damages. The Queen's Bench Division, in ordering apportionment, rejected the claimant's submission that the common law had recognised an intermediate category of case which fell between the conventional approach and the principle in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd ([2002] 3 All ER 305). 

Arbitration – Award. Disputes arose between the owners and charterers of a vessel that was hijacked by pirates. The claimant sub-charter of the vessel applied, under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, to set aside an award of an arbitral tribunal on the grounds that the tribunal had lacked jurisdiction to make it. The Commercial Court, dismissing the application, held that the tribunal had had jurisdiction to make the award and had correctly found that an inconsistency between a clause in the charterparty and of the 'BIMCO' arbitration clauses should be resolved in favour of the BIMCO arbitration clauses. 

Practice – Appeal. Three cases were heard together to enable the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to give guidance on the approach that should be taken to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that the principles to be derived from Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2014] 2 All ER 430) and Denton and others v TH White Ltd and another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others ([2014] All ER (D) 53 (Jul)) applied to applications for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Consideration was given to public law cases, and cases involving a shortage of funds and litigants in person. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for smuggling prohibited or highly taxed goods within a criminal organisation. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of s 11(1A)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the forum bar challenge, in s 19B of the Act, was only available for use in the case of an accusation European arrest warrant, not in the case of a conviction warrant. It further rejected the appellant's grounds of appeal, alleging inadequate particulars, and breaches of double jeopardy and art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Divorce – Costs. Following the divorce of a very wealthy couple, the wife petitioned for financial remedy orders. The husband sought a departure from equality in terms of the share of the wealth that the wife should receive at the end of the marriage, due to the alleged fact that a lot of the personal wealth represented post-separation accrual. The Family Division held that the husband had indeed been personally responsible for a lot of post-separation accrual of wealth and the award was to reflect that fact. 

Firearms – Variation to firearm certificate. Sheriff Court. Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision directing a chief police officer to vary a firearm certificate to permit an applicant to purchase a six-shot revolver, the chief constable having earlier refused to do so, the court held that the sheriff erred in law in failing to take into account, in an application for a 6-shot revolver for the humane dispatch of deer, that a 2-shot revolver was sufficient for that purpose. 

Personal injury – Liability – Breach of statutory duty – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by a pursuer who suffered a crush injury to his chest when working as an apprentice deck hand in the second defenders' employment on a vessel operated by the first defenders, the court held that there was a breach of statutory duty by the defenders, that the pursuer had established a causal link between the breach and his injuries, and that the total award of damages (including £22,000 for solatium £40,000 for loss of future earnings) would be reduced by 40% because of the pursuer's contributory negligence. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local planning authority to discharge a condition of the planning permission for a nine-turbine wind farm. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had not acted unlawfully in discharging the condition and the claimant had no expectation of consultation. Further, no exceptional circumstances had existed which had led to the conclusion that the authority had acted so unfairly as to have abused its powers. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The husband had been excluded from the family home, following the grant of a non-molestation order made following a without notice hearing. During the subsequent proceedings, the husband's application for relief from sanction was dismissed. In allowing the husband's appeal, the Family Court highlighted important principles applicable to such cases. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by Vladimir Peftiev for annulment of certain decisions and regulations adopted and maintained by the European Council concerning restrictive measures adopted against Belarus. The General Court annulled certain of those decisions and regulations but dismissed the rest of the action as being inadmissible.