Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. Three applicants, D, P and DAP, made common cause against T, originally relying upon the same points of claim. They subsequently fell out and served separate pleadings. Shortly before trial, P and DAP settled with T, and T agreed not to seek any order for costs against P or DAP. D proceeded to trial and lost. D was ordered to pay 80% of T's costs, with no contribution to those costs from P and DAP. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing D's appeal in part, held, inter alia, that the settlement agreement was not an answer to D's contribution claim. It was merely part of the circumstances of the case which the judge, having exercised his discretion under CPR 44.2, should have taken into account. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following a substantive hearing in which the claimant, although abandoning a large number of claims pre-trial, had been largely successful at trial, the court ordered that: (i) the claimant was to pay 80% of the defendant's costs on a standard basis up to and including a pre-trial review; (ii) the defendant was to pay 20% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis up to and including the pre-trial review; and (iii) the defendant was to pay 100% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis after the pre-trial review up to and including the trial. 

Compensation – Crime. The claimant sought compensation, under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, following the quashing of his conviction for possession of a false identity card with intent. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's conviction had been quashed on the basis of a newly discovered matter of law on the already known facts. Accordingly, the subsequent appreciation, on facts and circumstances known at the time of the proceedings, that the claimant had had an available statutory defence was not capable being a 'newly discovered fact' within the meaning of s 133 of the 1988 Act. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In the course of a dispute concerning the paying of sub-contractors, the defendant employer made an application, contending that the English court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was a good arguable case that the position was as claimed by the claimant and that it had been reasonably forseeable that the claim might be issued in, among other places, England. 

Holiday – Contract. Whilst on holiday in Spain, the claimant suffered a fall at the hotel and sustained injuries. She succeeded in her claim against the defendant organiser of the holiday package. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held, among other things, that the recorder had not, on the basis of the facts found, been justified in his conclusion that it had been an accident such as in the ordinary course of things did not happen if those who had the management of the hotel used proper care. It had been an accident which could have occurred despite the use of proper care. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's claims in negligence and for breach of statutory duty against the manufacturer of a probe the failure of which it contended had been the cause of a major fire in its factory. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. As a preliminary issue, the Queen's Bench Division held that there had been no breach of duty by the first defendant NHS Trust in failing to arrange a brain scan for the claimant in January 2001 when the claimant had had a tumour on the brain. 

Drugs – Controlled drugs. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for conspiracy to supply a controlled drug and held that the sentence, imposed for professional drug dealing at the highest level, had not been wrong in principle or manifestly excessive 

Minor – Abduction. A Maltese girl was brought by her mother to the United Kingdom without the knowledge or consent of the father. The father applied to the court for her return to Malta. The mother and K opposed the application. The Family Division dismissed the application and found that all three defences under the Hague Convention had been made out and K would not be returned to Malta as she had successfully established family life in the UK. 

Water and watercourses – Reservoir. The claimant charity sought judicial review of the defendant's decision to approve and proceed with proposals for reservoir safety works to the ponds on Hampstead Heath, subject to obtaining planning permission. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no basis for requiring safety to be balanced against competing factors such as preservation of the landscape, protection of the environment or heritage assets. Further, the defendant had not adopted an irrational approach to risk on the proper construction of the purpose of the Reservoirs Act 1975.