Latest Cases

Misrepresentation – Negligent representation. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendants seeking damages for misrepresentation in relation to the purchase of an aircraft. The Commercial Court held that the representation was negligent, but not fraudulent, and that the chairman of Action Aviation, H, was not personally liable. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held that there was no basis upon which it could be said that there had been no evidence to support the judge's conclusion, and that H could not be held personally liable for the negligent representation made on behalf of the seller of the aircraft. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The claimant had been employed by the defendant until his employment was terminated after a change of control event. He brought a claim against the defendant for a sum of money alleged to be owing on the basis of a clause in his service agreement. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the basis of the construction of the service agreement, the employee was entitled to the 'prescribed sum' for which the service agreement provided in clause 9.4, which was £418,774. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant company brought proceedings concerning an allegedly lost opportunity to develop oil reserves in Kurdistan. Its claim was funded by a number of parties (the costs defendants). The claim was dismissed in its entirety and an order was made for indemnity costs. The Commercial Court made orders as to how the costs should be divided between the costs defendants. 

Housing – Local authority. The issue on the appeal concerned the proper construction of standard leases granted by a local authority to its tenants, and, in particular, whether it was entitled to charge certain management/administration charges as part of the service charge recoverable under the lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on the true construction of the lease, the management costs of performing those services were recoverable as a service charge. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The first claimant was a company involved in conducting research for the purposes of the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. The first defendant, under an umbrella group was known as 'SHAC'; Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. The second defendants were people who intended, or who were likely to embark upon, a course of protest amounting to, at the least, unlawful harassment. The claimants sought final injunctive relief against the second defendants. The Queen's Bench Division granted the injunctive relief in respect of persons unknown as it was just and convenience to do so. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The inspector appointed by the Secretary of State found the defendant local planning authority's submission draft core strategy to be sound, subject to significant modifications. The claimant sought to quash the authority's adoption of the draft on grounds including that the authority had not complied with its duty to co-operate under s 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the duty to co-operate had not applied after the conclusion of the preparation stage, notwithstanding that it had come into force when the public examination had been suspended. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) that the supply of services by the taxpayer company to its insurance company subscribers was standard-rated and not exempt; and that the relevant supplies were exempt under art 135.1(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (the Directive). The tribunal took the view that, given the services usually provided by a broker, the FTT had been entitled to conclude that the services that the taxpayer had been providing had not been the services of a broker or agent. Accordingly, those services had not been exempt either under the Directive or under the Value Added Tax Act 1994. 

Mental health – Patient. The claimant's mother appealed against the refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus in respect of the defendants' refusal to discharge her son from hospital. The proceedings raised an issue as to whether the notice period of a discharge order, which had been made for the purposes of s 25 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and served in accordance with reg 3(3)(b)(i) of the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1184, started running from the time at which it was received at the defendant's fax machine, or whether time ran from when it was received by the officer which had been authorised by the hospital managers. The Court of Appeal Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that time could not have begun to run until the authorised officer had received the faxed documents. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had run across a road, against the red man signal, when he was hit by one of the defendant's buses which had driven through an amber light. The Queen's Bench Division, in determining liability, held that, on the evidence, the claimant had been solely responsible for the accident. The driver had not been negligent in not having stopped at the lights and in not having used an emergency braking procedure whereas the claimant had been negligent in not having seen the bus when he should have and for having failed to take care for his own safety. 

Contract – Implied term. The claimant, a member of a limited liability partnership (the LLP), was required to leave. He tried to sell his interest in the LLP, but was unable to do so. He brought proceedings, contending that the defendants, who were also members of the LLP, had breached implied terms in preventing him from properly allowing examination of the interest that he sought to sell. The Chancery Division dismissed his claim, holding that it was wholly inappropriate to imply either of the terms pleaded by him.