Latest Cases

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant tripped over a piece of permanent plant (a pipe) in the defendant's factory and brought a claim in personal injury based on Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The trial judge found that the pipe did not pose any danger to anyone and dismissed the claim. On appeal the Queen's Bench upheld that decision of the trial judge on the basis that the pipe was part of the plant and was where it always had been. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Two cases were listed for hearing together because they both raised issues concerning the qualifications necessary for the grant of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant or a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant under the points based system in Pt 6A of the Immigration Rules 1994 (HC 395) (the Rules). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the qualifications of the claimants in the first action were not eligible for points as a UK recognised bachelor or postgraduate degree. The claimants in the second action had failed to establish that delegation of the recognition role the National Recognition Information Centre for the United Kingdom was unlawful. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Privilege. In the course of proceedings concerning the administration of the estate of Boris Berezovsky, his daughter sought to rely on a witness statement containing confidential information on the settlement of proceedings with the appellants to establish the solvency of the estate. The judge had ordered disclosure of the confidential information with restrictions. The appellants appealed on the basis that such information was irrelevant to the determination of who was to administer the estate. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the evidence of the value of the settlement would be that assessed by the estate's receivers who had seen the confidential information. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The claimant and defendant had collided on a country road. The defendant lorry driver had been two feet over on the claimant's side of the road. The district judge found that the claimant had been 40% contributory negligent because, if she had been driving slower, the accident would not have happened. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal as the judge had not considered whether the claimant would have expected to meet an oncoming lorry so far over on her side of the road. She could not have been blamed for having failed to foresee that. 

Trinidad and Tobago – Civil Proceedings Rules. The judge had, under Civil Proceedings Rule 26.2, struck out the claimant's statement of case on the ground that the claimant had failed to respond positively to the defendants' request for details of the events that had given rise to the proceedings. The Court of Appeal had allowed the claimant's appeal as the judge had been wrong to hold that he could not, in particular under r 26.1(1)(w), order particulars of a statement of case at the stage when the matter had been before him. The Privy Council dismissed the defendants' appeal as the court's express discretion whether to strike out, under r 26.2, meant that the judge had to consider alternatives to strike out, such as ordering the claimant to serve further details or an amended statement of case. 

Professional negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: In an action for damages by a property developer who claimed that a solicitor's negligence had resulted in him becoming bound to a contract for the sale of subjects containing an option to the purchasers to resile if planning consent was not obtained within a specified period but no equivalent option to him as seller to withdraw, and that the inability to withdraw caused him to lose the opportunity to accept another prospective purchaser's offer at a much enhanced price, the court held that the defenders had succeeded in establishing that they were not guilty of a failure to exercise reasonable care, and that even if it had concluded otherwise the pursuer had failed to prove any consequential damage. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. Seven appeals against extradition to Lithuania were heard together. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as the assurances given by the respondent judicial authority had not been unreliable and the appellants had fallen well short of showing that their human rights would be violated if extradited. 

Conflict of laws – Stay of proceedings. The Companies Court considered an application for a stay of proceedings by the defendant financial group. The proceedings concerned the transfer of shares in five Saudi Arabian companies. The claim was made on behalf of a company incorporated under the law of the Cayman Islands. In granting the stay, the court held that the courts of Saudi Arabia were clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum. 

Negligence – Flood. The claimant was the freehold owner of an apartment block. In September 2005, water pipes at the apartment block burst, causing damage. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant company, which had designed the cold water system. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the action, holding that, although failure in the pipes would probably have been prevented if anti-surge valves had been fitted, there was no evidence that the claimant would have fitted such valves if it had been advised to do so. 

Financial Services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In the course of proceedings brought against the defendants by the Financial Conduct Authority, a preliminary issue arose for determination. The defendants submitted that the schemes in issue were not collective investment schemes, as they had neither of the characteristics required by s 235(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, namely, pooling of profit or management as a whole. The Chancery Division held that all of the investment schemes under consideration were collective investment schemes within the meaning of s 235 of the Act.