Latest Cases

Negligence – Damage. The claimant was a father seeking access to his son within the family court system. He brought a claim against the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) contending that their negligent behaviour amounted to misfeasance in public office and also disproportionately breached his right to private and family life under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998. He sought damages against CAFCASS. The Queen's Bench Division held that the instant was not a case in which it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on CAFCASS towards the claimant. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. Six claims were heard together in which each claimant challenged the defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework's decisions refusing to grant legal aid in respect of their immigration proceedings. The Administrative Court, in allowing the applications, held, among other things, that the overarching question posed in the Lord Chancellor's guidance, namely, whether the withholding of legal aid would make the assertion of a claim practically impossible or lead to an obvious unfairness in proceedings, set too high a threshold. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign judgment. Judgment was acquired by the claimant company against the defendant in the Russian court. The claimant sought to enforce the judgment against the defendant in the English court. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, there was no substance in the defendant's arguments, and hence the claimant was entitled to judgment. 

Personal injury – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: Pronouncing decree of absolvitor in an action in which the pursuer, who was struck and blinded in the right eye by a golf ball hit by the defender during a golf tournament, sought damages, claiming the defender was negligent, the court held that the defender played his shot in the ordinary course of play, the danger of the pursuer's being hit by the shot was a risk incidental to the competition, which he accepted when undertaking the task of officiating, and the injury he sustained was not caused by an error of judgment on the defender's part that a reasonable competitor, being a reasonable man of the sporting world, would not have made. 

Local authority – Social services. The Administrative Court held that capital derived from the claimant's personal injury settlement which was managed by a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection had to be disregarded by the defendant local authority when deciding whether she could be required to contribute to the cost of care services she received. In reaching that conclusion, the court interpreted the meaning of 'Court of Protection' in para 44 of Sch 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, SI 1987/1967, and held that the claimant's capital fell within both para 44(1)(a) and (b) of the Regulations. 

Practice – Civil litigation. In the course of civil proceedings, the parties were required to serve costs budgets in the form of precedent H. The issue was whether the defendant's 'precedent H' form was a nullity as a result of the fact that it had not been signed by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman. The Technology and Construction Court held that, whilst the form had not been signed by a 'senior legal representative' within the meaning of CPR PD 3E, that had not rendered the defendant's costs budget a nullity and no question of a need for relief from sanctions had arisen. 

Arbitration – Award. A number of disputes between the owners and the charterers of a vessel were referred to arbitration. An award was made in favour of the owners, with interest. The charterers appealed, pursuant to s 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, against the award of interest. The Commercial Court gave guidance as to applicability of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 to charterparties providing for English law and London arbitration. The court, allowing the appeal, held that a London arbitration clause in a charterparty was irrelevant to an inquiry under s 12(1) of the 1998 Act. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The claimants had succeeded in obtaining compensation from the defendant creditor company on the basis that the relationship between them had been unfair within the meaning of s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the defendant had been liable for the misrepresentations and breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules of a company deemed its agent, which had led to the claimants obtaining a loan and payment protection insurance. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant company sought to purchase a telecommunications firm. In order to facilitate the purchase, it made agreements with the defendants. The claimant brought proceedings, contending that the defendants had breached the agreements. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the agreement between the parties, the defendants had not been given additional assurances as alleged, and the claim would be allowed. 

Human rights – Association. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (the RMT), based in London, brought a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) alleging that statutory restrictions on the right to strike and, in particular, the ban on secondary industrial action had hampered its ability to protect its members' interests in violation of the right to assembly under art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR ruled that there had been no violation of that right on the basis that the specific situation of the present case had not disclosed an unjustified interference with the RMT's right to freedom of association as guaranteed by the Convention.