Latest Cases

Libel and slander – Defamation. The first claimant was the CEO of the second claimant, a private landlord company. A newspaper article was published by the defendants in which it was alleged by the claimants had portrayed them as 'slum landlords'. The claimants brought a claim in defamation against the defendants as a result of the article. Following a trial of two preliminary issues, the Queen's Bench division held that the words complained of had the meaning that the claimants were a well-off landlord making money at the misery of the tenants. The claimants had nevertheless failed to demonstrated serious harm to reputations as required by s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. 

Railway – Construction of railway. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the defendant Secretary of State's decision to make safeguarding directions for phase 1 of the proposed High Speed Two railway (HS2). They contended that the safeguarding directions were unlawful as they had not been assessed under the regime for strategic environmental assessment. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the safeguarding directions were not a plan or programme which set the framework for future development consent of projects. 

Prison – Prisoner. Ten British prisoners issued proceedings against the United Kingdom, complaining that they had been prevented from voting in European Parliament elections in violation of art 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention (A3P1). The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of A3P1. However, it refused damages, as the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. 

Adoption – Practice. The applicants sought a declaration that an adoption order made in Brazil in the applicants' favour in respect of their niece and nephew, D and E, be recognised under the law of England and Wales. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that the adoptions of D and E should be properly recognised in accordance with the common law of England and Wales and that a declaration to that effect would be granted, pursuant to s 57 of the Family Law Act 1986. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos dust whilst working for the defendants. He had previously brought an action against eight other defendants in 2003 which had ended in a settlement (the 'first action'). In the first action, the claimant had claimed damages for asbestosis and pleural plaques and damages for the risk of mesothelioma. The claimant claimed damages against the defendants for his contraction of pleural mesothelioma. The defendants resisted the claim. Three issues came to be decided as preliminary issues. The Queen's Bench Division held that the proceedings were not an abuse of process and would be allowed to continue by virtue of s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. 

Building contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court considered a claim by long leaseholders in a block of flats, against, among others, the firm of architects responsible for developing the flats and the company employed to inspect the premises with a view to providing certificates to potential purchasers to confirm the quality of the construction. It found that the repairing covenant covered, among others, the claimants, and that the architects had owed a duty of care to the claimants. The costs of remedial work would be allowed, as well as damages for each claimant proportionate to their loss. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed. The judge had erred in finding that the claimants were entitled to succeed on the grounds of negligent misstatement or collateral warranty. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The applicant father sought a parental responsibility order in respect of E. The respondent, E's mother, requested that she take E for a visit to Poland and the district judge ordered that she undertook to return E to the jurisdiction. However, E's mother flew to Poland with E and stated that they would not return. E's father sought an order for E's mother's committal for contempt of court and, further, restoration of his application for contact and parental responsibility orders. The Family Division held that it had jurisdiction to make an order for parental responsibility. 

Personal injury – Breach of statutory duty. Court of Session: In an action by a pursuer who injured her back in the course of her employment with the defenders as a sales surveyor, the court held that the pursuer had proved how the accident happened, that it was caused by defenders' breach of statutory duty, and that there was no contributory negligence by the pursuer. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant was employed by the defendant local authority as head of languages at its college. The parties entered an agreement that the claimant would terminate his employment with the authority in return for a termination payment and an agreed letter of reference. The authority subsequently provided the police with a chronology detailing the claimant's disciplinary problems. The claimant issued proceedings for misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence and/or malicious falsehood. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed all of the claims. 

Cohabitants – Financial provision – Application by survivor for provision on intestacy – Meaning of 'net intestate estate'. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by a surviving cohabitant to whom a sheriff had awarded a capital sum out of the intestate estate of her deceased partner, the court held that the deceased's 'net intestate estate' in terms of s 29 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act did not include property he owned in Ireland and the sheriff principal was, therefore, correct to reduce the award to the appellant to nil.