Latest Cases

Bahamas – Injunction. The action concerned the construction of a cruise ship terminal and dock off the island of North Bimini and the creation of a 4.5 acre island offshore, using material dredged from the sea. The claimant company, formed by residents of the island, sought to prevent the development, which it believed would cause severe environmental damage. The Court of Appeal dismissed, by a majority, the claimant's appeal from a judge's decision to set aside an injunction to restrain the dredging of the sea, which had been granted to the claimant by the Board of the Privy Council. The Privy Council, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on the facts, there had been no error of law or perversity of fact in the judge's decision and the Court of Appeal had been right to uphold it. 

Employment – Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) upheld the rejection by the employment tribunal of the employee's claims for, amongst other things, direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. However, the EAT decided that in concluding that an adjustment to the scoring of criteria for selection for redundancy would not have avoided dismissal in any event, the reasonable adjustments duty should not have been limited to avoiding dismissal, but should have extended to avoiding detriment flowing from disadvantage, and the hurt feelings that would have resulted. Accordingly, the case would be remitted for reconsideration of that limited point only. 

Criminal law – Manslaughter. The claimant's son died whilst being restrained by a doorman of a public house. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to prosecute the doorman for either gross negligence manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court allowed the application to the extent that it quashed the CPS's decision not to prosecute the doorman for unlawful act manslaughter. The way in which the case was advanced in the present proceedings, namely that the restraint was inherently very dangerous and could not constitute reasonable force, even if D had not appreciated how dangerous it was, had not been fully analysed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was before the court a substantive hearing in respect of financial claims arising from divorce proceedings between a husband and wife. The issue of reporting of the proceedings arose and the necessary application was made on behalf of the media. The Family Division held that taking all matters into account it fell firmly in favour of privacy in relation to financial matters being maintained. Nevertheless, a blanket restriction went too far. 

Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The respondent issued proceedings for negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty for damage suffered in an explosion at the appellants' factory. The judge found in favour of the appellants, but the Inner House of Court of Session reversed that decision and the appellants appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that s 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was to be read as if it said 'the creditor was not aware … that loss, injury or damage, which had been caused as aforesaid, had occurred'. Accordingly, any obligation the appellants had owed to make reparation to the respondent had prescribed before the proceedings had begun. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant, a prison officer, was transferred out of the civil service into the private sector, under the Transfer of Employment (Protection of Undertakings) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE). The pensions ombudsman rejected her complaint against the defendant cabinet office about the removal of her reserved right to an unreduced pension from age 55, following her transfer. The Chancery Division, allowing her appeal, held that the ombudsman's decision had erred in law in misconstruing the meaning of the term 'resignation' in r 1.13 of the Rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The ordinary meaning of the word 'resignation' broadly covered a situation where someone had decided of their own accord to leave their employment, but did not apply where that person who was continuing to work full time in her former role, but who had been transferred under the terms of TUPE. 

Practice – Striking out. The proceedings concerned alleged repudiatory breaches by a company, Texaco, of a number of agreements. The court held that breaches had occurred, but that the claimant had repudiated them. The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendants. The defendants sought to strike out part of the new proceedings, contending that it constituted an abuse of process, since it amounted to a collateral attack on the judge's findings in the earlier proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the paragraph in question of the new proceedings constituted an abuse of process and would be struck out. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £12,250 in general damages. She had symptoms caused by a soft tissue injury to her lumbar spine/lower back, including restricted movement, flexion, extension and sleep disruption, which were expected to continue permanently. She suffered from pain in her right leg with tingling for a few weeks, then becoming intermittent and resolving eight months post-accident. Travel anxiety resolved 17 months post-accident. 

European Union – State aids. The judge dismissed the claimant local authorities' challenge to decisions of the defendant Secretary of State in relation to the allocation of European Union structural funds for the period 2014 to 2020. The claimant's appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Secretary of State had not breached the EU law principles of proportionality and equal treatment. Further, he had not failed to take account of a mandatory relevant consideration, namely, the needs of the transition regions. 

Discovery – Production of documents. The claimants obtained documents concerning Guernsey's response to a request for mutual legal assistance made by the defendant Serious Fraud Office in the course of disclosure. The first claimant sought permission to give those documents to his lawyers in other proceedings and to seek to have the documents adduced in Guernsey proceedings. The Commercial Court granted permission for the documents to be given to the first claimant's lawyers. However, it exercised its discretion to refuse permission to seek to have the documents admitted in the Guernsey proceedings for reasons including public interest and unfairness to his opposing parties in those proceedings.