Latest Cases

Damages – Personal injury. The claimants had a baby that was still-born. They sued the defendant hospital. The hospital admitted negligence in the case of the wife but disputed that the husband could be a secondary victim of the still birth. The Queen's Bench Division held that the authorities showed that the control mechanisms in relation to secondary victims often had the effect of excluding worthy cases and, on the facts, the husband could not succeed and his claim would be dismissed. 

Compensation – Criminal Injuries. The appeal concerned the ability of a child, CP, to claim criminal injuries compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), as a result of being born with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, as a direct consequence of her mother's excessive drinking while pregnant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed CP's appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber). Among other things, the court rejected CP's contention that a foetus was capable of being 'any other person' within the meaning of s 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and held that, if the foetus was not another person at the time of the administration of the noxious substance, the offence could not be complete at that point. 

Injunction – Summary procedure. On an application for summary judgment for trespass to land, the Chancery Division gave summary judgment in respect of certain issues in which it held that the defendants had no realistic prospect of defending the claim for an injunction at trial. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee had committed assaults in the workplace because of his paranoid schizophrenic illness. The employment tribunal found that the employer had dismissed him because of him having committed acts of gross misconduct and that it had had reasonable grounds for its belief in that regard. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's apparent failure to consider whether there had been mitigating circumstances had made its decision unsafe. 

Practice – Interim remedy. The claimant sought, amongst other things, a stay of art 5A of the Export Control (Russia, Crimea and Sevastopol Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2014, SI 2014/2932. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the provisions were sufficiently certain and there was no risk of serious or irreparable damage to the claimant. Further, interim relief would inevitably risk lessening the effectiveness of the European Union sanctions, such that the balance of convenience plainly favoured allowing art 5A of the Order to come into effect. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The parties married in 2006 and separated seven years later. The wife issued divorce proceedings and instituted a financial remedies claim. There was a five-day final hearing of financial remedy cross-applications between the parties. The Family Division ordered a lump sum of €21.6m against the husband on the basis of restorative justice. 

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 4 of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83 (on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted) and arts 3 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in proceedings between A, B and C, who were third country nationals, and the Netherlands State Secretary for Security and Justice concerning the rejection of their applications for asylum in the Netherlands. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The child, on the father's admission, had been battered on several occasions, between birth and the age of four months. The court was asked to decide on the scale or degree of the mother's knowledge of what the father was doing. The Family Division held that it was satisfied that the mother had known that the father had been harming their daughter, but for certain reasons, she chose not to take any action to protect her. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The General Court of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request has been made in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Edgard De Clercq and others, inter alia, for having infringed, on several occasions, an obligation to make a declaration in respect of posted workers imposed by Belgian national legislation. 

Negligence – Defective premises. The claimants were owners of some apartments in two blocks built by the defendant company. They brought proceedings under the Defective Premises Act 1972, alleging that their apartments had not been fit for habitation when completed. The Technology and Construction Court made findings on the scope of the Act, and the different heads of damage. Awards were made for residual blight on the value of the properties following remedial work, and for damages for damages for distress and inconvenience.