Latest Cases

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The claimant supermarket operator applied for a statutory review in relation to traffic regulation orders (TROs) adopted by the defendant local authority in relation to four roads. Dismissing the application, the Administrative Court held that the authority had not acted unlawfully and had held an adequate consultation process. The authority had not failed to give proper reasons for making the TROs. Nor had it failed to give proper consideration to the desirability of providing access to premises or the issue of air quality. It had not failed to have regard to the fact the major works had been ongoing throughout the period that the TROs had been trialled and there had been no legitimate expectation that different options would be trialled. Finally, the suggestion that the authority had erred in failing to convene a public inquiry was misconceived 

Trust and trustee – Investments. The Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber held that it was not bound by a previous decision of the High Court and that in any event the decision in Pierce v Wood was wrong. It further held that the Court of Appeal in Howell v Trippier had not held that the deeming effect of s 249(6)(b) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applied for the purposes of trust law generally or indeed for any purpose outside that Act. Section 249(6)(b) did not have any effect beyond that Act and that therefore the scrip dividend shares and their proceeds of sale were capital of the settlement. 

Practice and procedure – Defence. The Chancery Division, in granting the first to the fifth respondents an extension of time for service of their defences, held that an in-time application for an extension of time should not be treated as if it were an application for relief from sanctions, but should be judged against the overriding objective. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The judge awarded the claimants damages for the defendant neighbour's trespass and nuisance. She further dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for damages on the basis that the claimant had wrongly prevented him from re-routing his gas pipe and an injunction, requiring the claimants to allow him to gain access. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the re-routing of the gas pipe to an area outside the property demised was not within the parties' leases. Accordingly, the judge had been right to dismiss the counterclaim and there had been no errors in her award of damages. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant had been born in a poor condition and had required intubation and ventilation. He had suffered brain injury which left him with a number of health problems including asymmetric diplegic cerebral palsy and epilepsy. Proceedings were issued alleging negligence on the part of the attending doctor at the time of his birth in that she had not noticed that he was not being properly ventilated for a period of 45 minutes. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claim, finding that, on the evidence, it was likely that the ventilation tube had been displaced in a non-negligent manner nearer to the end of the 45 minute period and because it was unlikely that either the doctor or the nurses would not have noticed for such a length of time that the claimant's chest had not been moving in time with the ventilator. 

Company – Merger. The Companies Court granted applications, under regs 11 and 13 of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations), for or an order convening a meeting shareholders and for the approval of members of two proposed cross-border mergers of companies within the Olympus group. It held that a proposed cross-border merger would be compliant with, and effective under, the Regulations and Council Directive (EC) 2005/56 in circumstances where the shareholders in the transferor company had agreed not to receive shares or other securities in the transferee. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following a judgment in the favour of the defendant university, the issue of costs remained. The claimant student submitted that no order as to costs should be made, as the defendant had unreasonably failed to engage in alternative dispute resolution and had not succeeded on all the issues in the proceedings. The Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the appropriate order in the case was that the claimant should pay the defendant's costs in the case subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 6 to 8 of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts) in conjunction with arts 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between the applicant and the respondent concerning the enforcement of an arbitration award ordering the latter to repay sums relating to a consumer credit contract. 

Child – Care. In care proceedings brought by the local authority, the Family Division was asked to make certain findings of fact in relation to injuries suffered by the children whilst in the care of the mother. Taking into account evidence by both the local authority and the mother, it was held that the only explanation for the various false accounts given by the mother was that the mother was culpable for the injury. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The defendants appealed against the judge's grant of relief from sanctions to both sides. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to decide the matter as he had. On the facts, the relevant circumstances had included: (i) the non-compliance in the case had not been trivial and there had been no good reason for it; (ii) the trial date would not be lost; (iii) no significant extra cost would be occasioned; (iv) refusal to grant relief from the sanction would effectively mean the end of the claim; and (v) the defendants had been in default.