Latest Cases

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant's company issued proceedings against the defendant bank (Lloyds) for breach of contract and/or negligence on the basis that its liquidation was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of Lloyd's failure to pay funds to a third party. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that Lloyds was in breach of contract in not honouring an instruction to pay. However, assuming that there had been no break in the chain of causation, the claim was too remote, as Lloyds had not taken the risk of being liable for the consequences of a default in the event of the payment being late because of bank error. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. In considering appeals regarding alleged breaches of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of delays towards post-tariff release of prisoners serving life or indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP), the Supreme Court accepted the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights conclusion in (James v United Kingdom (Application Nos 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09) (2012)33 BHRC 617 that the purpose of the sentence included rehabilitation in relation to prisoners subject to life and IPP sentences in respect of whom shorter tariff periods had been set. The Supreme Court further accepted as implicit in the scheme of art 5 that the state was under a duty to provide an opportunity, reasonable in all the circumstances, for such a prisoner to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he no longer presented an unacceptable danger to the public. A duty to facilitate release could and should be implied as an ancillary duty - a duty not affecting the lawfulness of the detention, but sounding in damages if breached. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant company, RP, brought proceedings against the defendant, C, alleging deceit and misrepresentation. It subsequently discontinued those allegations. RP later brought a second claim against C, in which it alleged deceit and misrepresentation. The Commercial Court, in dismissing C's application to strike out the particulars of claim, held that there had been no abuse of process by RP. 

Design – Design right. In a judgment of July 2013, the Patents County Court found that the defendant had infringed a United Kingdom registered design and UK unregistered design rights in relation to a metal frame (see[2013] All ER (D) 396 (Jul)). The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court considered the manner in which damages claimed by the second claimant were to be calculated. It held that the damages payable were the equivalent of 10% of the defendant's sale price for the infringing frames. 

Highway – Definitive map. The claimants challenged an inspector's decision, confirming the interested party's order, seeking recognition of a footpath in the definitive map and statement. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that that there was no additional test over and beyond the tripartite test to establish whether use had been as of right, which the inspector had, in fact, applied. Further, the use of the footpath had not been secret, precluding its use as of right. Finally, the defendant Secretary of State and the interested party had had jurisdiction to make the order. 

Crown Court – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, amended the defendant's sentence in circumstances where the judge had imposed a sentence which did not comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the substantive judgment on the parties' dispute, the Administrative Court determined the costs of two claims. With respect to the first claim, it held that it would not be right to disallow any part of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners' (the Revenue) costs, but its costs in respect of appearing at the permission hearing would be excluded and the interested party was not entitled to its costs. With respect to the second claim, the claimant should have 30% of its costs as against the Revenue, as although it had succeeded, its claim had been misconceived and had failed in its objective. 

Insurance – Marine insurance. The owners of a vessel claimed against the defendant war risks insurers for the constructive total loss of the vessel by reason of her detention for longer than the six month in Venezuela. That detention was consequent upon the discovery of drugs affixed on the hull of the vessel by unknown persons, without the knowledge of the owners. The Commercial Court granted the owners' claim for a constructive total loss on the basis that there was cover under the policy for the malicious acts of the third parties who strapped the drugs to the hull of the vessel and the exclusion for infringement of customs regulations, claimed by the insurers, did not apply to exclude cover in the circumstances of the case. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Nigerian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to certify his asylum and human rights claims as clearly unfounded. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that whether the no realistic prospect of success or the clearly unfounded test had been used, the conclusion would inevitably have been the same. Further, nothing in the Secretary of State's decision letter indicated that she had failed to have regard to the claimant's medical evidence of his severe depression and suicide risk. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee was dismissed for gross misconduct for slapping a patient. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and that there should be no Polkey deduction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that, applying settled law to the facts, the tribunal had erred in law and its decision could not stand.