Latest Cases

Magistrates – Jurisdiction. The claimant, who was 14 years old, was charged with robbery on a joint enterprise with three other juveniles. The lay justices decided to decline jurisdiction (the decision) and sent the claimant and her co-accused to the Crown Court. At the plea and case management hearing the claimant pleaded not guilty, but her co-accused pleaded guilty. The judge expressed reservations about the claimant facing trail in the Crown Court alone. The judge adjourned the case and the claimant applied for judicial review of the decision. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that, in the instant case, the justices had failed to properly consider the relevant sentencing guidelines and the claimant's limited role in the alleged offence. 

Practice – Order. The Commercial Court granted the defendants relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 where the non-compliance had been trivial and the deadline had just been missed for reasons which were explicable, if not excusable. Having regard to all the circumstances, it was the type of case in which relief should be granted. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant was an employee of JJ who was an independent contractor of the defendant National Trust. The claimant was critically injured whilst felling a tree on National Trust property and sought to bring an action in negligence against the National Trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that the National Trust did not owe the claimant a duty of care in its choice of JJ as its independent contractor. Accordingly, the inevitable consequence was that the action had to be dismissed. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The claimant company advanced a sum by way of loan to a company owned by the defendants, in return for shares in the company. The claimant commenced an action seeking to recover the sum primary basis of the claim was that it was contended that the claimant had entered into the whole arrangement with the defendants as a result of what were said to be fraudulent misrepresentations made by the first defendant. The Queen's Bench Division held that none of the fraudulent representations pleaded had been made out and therefore the claim failed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. NL was the eight child of the mother who had a history of substance abuse and involvement of social services with her previous seven children. On the evidence of a hastily instructed independent expert, the justices made a decision to separate the mother and NL and an interim care order was made. The mother appealed and the Family Division held that due to procedural unfairness the decision could not stand and that NL was to be returned to his mother forthwith. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003, art 4(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council, art 5(1) and (3) of Directive (EC) 2008/95, and art 9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Rolex SA and Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA against Mr Blomqvist concerning the destruction of a counterfeit watch which Mr Blomqvist had bought through a Chinese online sales website and which had been seized by the customs authorities. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employees were dismisses following a transfer of undertakings under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). They brought successful claims before an employment tribunal and before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The employer appealed on the basis that the decision to dismiss was an economic technical or organisational reason. The Court of Appeal Civil Division held that it was not an economic, technical or organisational decision within reg 7 of TUPE decision and the dismissal had been automatically unfair. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The conduct and competence committee of the defendant Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) found the appellant nurses guilty of misconduct and struck them off the register of nurses. At the hearing, the committee admitted anonymous hearsay evidence adduced by the NMC. The Administrative Court held that, although the anonymous evidence should not have been admitted, the committee's reasoning and conclusions on the critical aspects of its findings were unassailable. Accordingly, it dismissed the appellants appeals against the committee's findings, save that the findings which had depended in part on the anonymous evidence would be quashed. 

Vicarious liability – Employer and employee. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant following his assault by the defendant's employee. The recorder dismissed the claim, as the claimant had failed to satisfy the test of vicarious liability. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on the basis of the facts found by the recorder, both as to the nature of the employee's employment and the particular circumstances of the assault, there had been no element which could bring the claimant's case within the close connection test so as to properly enable a finding of vicarious liability. 

Limitation of action – When time begins to run. In August 2000, the claimants' employment with the British Telecommunications (BT) ceased and they transferred to another company. In August 2002, the claimants ceased to be members of BT's pension scheme. In August 2008, the claimants issued proceedings against BT in contract and tort, based on representations that their employment terms, including pension, would not change. The master struck out the contract claim as time-barred, but not the tort claim and BT appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the master's decision on the accrual of the cause of action in tort had been correct, as actual damage had been suffered by the claimants when they had ceased to be members of the BT pension scheme.