Latest Cases

Highway – Maintenance. The proceedings concerned an appeal against the judge's interpretation of s 38(6) of the Highways Act 1980 that a s 38 agreement, including when made under s 38(3) of the Act, could in law contain provision for the party other than the highway authority to pay a sum referable to the expenses of a highways maintenance after the date on which it became maintainable at the public expense. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the judge had reached the correct conclusion. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The claimant prisoners serving sentences of indeterminate imprisonment had been unable to undertake the healthy sex programme recommended for their release. They issued proceedings, contending that the second defendant Secretary of State was in breach of his public law duty and art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had not made a reasonable provision of systems and resources, as his duty could not be met by identifying a lack of resources. However, the delay was not of the magnitude sufficient to establish liability for infringement of art 5(1) or (4) of the Convention. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The proceedings concerned two libel actions arising from a notorious incident at the gates of Downing Street on the evening of 19 September 2012. The Queen's Bench Division held that evidence of experts in the field of phonetics and field of vision/trajectory analysis could be admitted by the parties. Further, evidence of alleged previous similar incidents involving the claimant in the first proceedings would be admitted, save for six allegations, as it was relevant and there would not be unfair prejudice. 

Limitation of action – Personal injury claim. In 2011, the claimant brought proceedings against the defendant, his former employer, for damage to his hearing. The judge allowed the claim and held that, on the issue of limitation, it had not been reasonable to have expected the claimant specifically to ask his doctor about the cause of his hearing problems in 1997. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that, applying the appropriate test in s 14(3) of the Limitation Act 1980, it had been reasonable to expect the claimant to ask the doctor what had caused his hearing loss in all the circumstances of the case. 

Arbitration – Tribunal. The claimant owners of a vessel commenced proceedings against the defendant charterer following the vessel suffering damage. The tribunal found for the owners, but they subsequently made an application under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, seeking declaratory relief and seeking to have certain disputes referred back to the tribunal. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that the tribunal had erred and that the disputes in question would be remitted. 

Police – Discipline. Following a local authority meeting in which a protest got out of hand, two claimants who had been arrested brought an action seeking damages against the defendant police for assault and battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution and a declaration that he had violated their rights under arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the defendant's actions on the basis of the common law duty that a local authority had to decide, as a matter of unfettered discretion, who could and who could not attend its meetings. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The proceedings raised a question as to the legitimacy of registration as a default with credit reference agencies of a non-payment by a debtor (or hirer) of money contracted to be paid under a regulated, but irremediably unenforceable, credit agreement. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the claimants' appeal against the judge's finding that they had not established causation, held, inter alia, that it had not been accurate to describe the first claimant as a defaulter under his hire purchase agreement once a competent court had decided that it had been irremediably unenforceable against him. 

Insolvency – Statutory demand. Following a money judgment in its favour, the claimant creditor served a statutory demand on the defendant debtor and obtained an interim charging order over the defendant's interest in a property (the property). The deputy registrar set aside the statutory demand, having found that the property's value was such that the debt was fully secured. The claimant appealed. The Chancery Division, allowing the appeal, held that fresh evidence that after some six months' marketing of the property, no-one had been prepared to offer a certain price for it was highly persuasive if not conclusive evidence that it was not currently worth the price which it would have to achieve if the claimant's debt were to be fully secured. Accordingly the statutory demand should not have been set aside. 

Practice – Striking out. There were 565 claimants located in numerous territories across the world. They all sued the defendants, BA, in respect of losses they allegedly incurred as a result of what was said to have been a worldwide cartel in transporting cargo by air, raising the prices of air cargo services. The Chancery Division, held that BA's application for the striking out and/or summary dismissal of the claimants' claims in the torts of unlawful means conspiracy and unlawful interference ought to be adjourned at least until disclosure had taken place. The claimants' application for two contentions of law in BA's defence to be declared incorrect, struck out or summarily dismissed would be adjourned with liberty to restore at an appropriate time. 

Insurance – Claim. Following large-scale theft from the second claimant company's premises, the claimants brought an insurance claim for business interruption losses in respect of goods allegedly stolen. The Commercial Court held that the claim would be rejected in its entirety.