Latest Cases

Personal Injury. The claimant, executrix of the deceased's estate, received £8,500 general damages, £11,800 for bereavement, following the defendant's admission of liability that his misdiagnosis and consequent failure to prescribe appropriate medication for her husband amounted to clinical negligence and led to the acceleration of symptoms associated with a pre-existing condition. 

The parties disagreed on whether the respondent council was obliged to remove its alterations and reinstate the sub-let premises on the expiry of the sub-lease when the request to do so was made orally and not put in writing before the sub-lease expired. The Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session held that writing was required and the appellant appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that neither the sub-lease nor a minute of agreement authorising alterations to the sub-let premises had required such request to be in writing. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The employee had issued proceedings in the employment tribunal alleging detriment on grounds related to union activities contrary to s 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal had allowed his claim and the employing NHS Trust had appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the relevant trade union had not been independent at the time of the acts complained of, namely three years before, therefore the tribunal had not had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employee's appeal. It held that the question whether a trade union was independent did not affect the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal in a claim under s 146 of the Act. Further, a certificate of independence was retrospective in its effect for a reasonable period before the date of the certificate. Historic questions of independence were to be referred to the certification officer. 

Immigration – Refusal of leave. The claimants sought judicial review of the transmission of information under the immigration sanction scheme which could be imposed on non-residents seeking to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom who had unpaid NHS debts of at least £1,000. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the relevant information was not confidential, and that the Secretary of State had both the statutory and common law duties to transmit the information. Further, the NHS bodies had had a duty, not a discretion, to transmit the relevant information to the Secretary of State. 

Costs – Assessment. The applicant coach company had been a defendant in a personal injury action and had its costs assessed on a detailed basis. It applied for permission to appeal on the basis that the judge had misapplied CPR 44 of the old version of the rules. The Queen's Bench Division held that in assessing costs, a court could consider on an item by item basis whether a particular item of costs was proportionate and necessary even if costs were proportionate on a global basis. Permission to appeal was refused. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principles of EU law relating to consumer protection and a balance in the parties' rights and obligations) should be interpreted as meaning that statutory and regulatory provisions of a member state, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, were excluded from their scope, when there was no contractual term altering the effect or ambit of those provisions. 

Costs – Assessment. The claimant in a personal injury action that had settled put in a bill of costs that included a success fee of 75% on the solicitors' charges. The second defendant, Motor Insurance Bureau, challenged that claim and offered 30%. A master accepted the 30% and the claimant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division considering CPR 45.18 held that the master had not erred in his approach to assessing a reasonable success fee. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to grant a European Economic Area family permit and entry clearance to enable the second claimant Kenyan national to enter and reside in the United Kingdom with her husband, the first claimant, and their three children. The Administrative Court stayed those proceedings pending determination of the claimants' statutory appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union's determination on the court's reference in R (on the application of McCarthy and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] All ER (D) 372 (Nov)), concerning whether the UK's approach to residence cards issued by other member states was lawful. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. The claimant received £4,000 PSLA after suffering a laceration to the ulna side of his right hand. The wound healed over the course of a month but the residual symptoms, including restriction in movement in his little finger, and a 3 cm scar were permanent. 

Extradition – Discharge of fugitive. The district judge, having accepted the judicial authority's assurance that the mandatory death sentence would not be carried out, refused to order the respondent's extradition to Ghana to face trial for murder, as it would be incompatible with his rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judicial authority appealed. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not been entitled to reject the specific assurance and that the mere fact that the death sentence would be imposed, by itself, did not impose a bar on extradition. However, the respondent would face treatment which would be inhuman and degrading to him, despite the assurance given, particularly given his mental health.