Latest Cases

Personal Injury. The Claimant suffered a laceration and scarring to his face after being bitten by the Defendant's dog. He was awarded damages of £3,500 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant was struck on the head by the wing mirror of a bus operated by the Defendant. She was awarded damages of £2,773 including £2,700 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge found that a 16-month-old child had suffered a non-accidental injury, caused by the appellant, the mother's partner. He appealed on the grounds that the judge had erred in her consideration of the medical and non-medical evidence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the evidence was equivocal and the judge's finding that evidence that had supported a traumatic cause as likely was either not accurate or not explained. However, the support that she appeared to have erroneously derived from the medical evidence, albeit possibly limited, might have been sufficient to propel her to a finding that she would not otherwise have made against the appellant. 

Costs – Security for costs. The Chancery Division refused the defendants' application for permission to appeal against an order refusing to grant security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(g) where the 'step' relied on under CPR 25.13(2)(g) did not make difficult the enforcement of a costs order in the action. Accordingly, there was no realistic prospect of success. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant suffered neck and shoulder pain as a result of a road traffic accident when the stationary vehicle in which she was travelling was struck in the rear by the defendant's vehicle. She was awarded damages of £1,800 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant suffered a permanent low back injury as the result of a work related accident. He was awarded damages of £17,000 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Costs – Order for costs. The cost appeals raised the question of whether, where a party lost mental capacity in the course of proceedings, such loss of capacity had the automatic and immediate effect of terminating their solicitor's retainer, particularly where solicitors were conducting personal injury claims pursuant to conditional fee agreements entered into before 1 April 2013, in respect of which success fees continued to be recoverable from defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that to automatically terminate a solicitor's retainer in such circumstances would be contrary principle. 

Sentence – Appeal. The defendants, IA aged 84 and TA aged 68, were husband and wife and had both been sentenced, amongst other things, to two counts of trafficking a person into the United Kingdom for exploitation and received concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment. IA had also been sentenced to 13 counts of rape and received concurrent sentences of 13 years' imprisonment. Accordingly, TA had received a total sentence of five years' imprisonment and IA a total sentence of 13 years' imprisonment. The judge at the contested trials had applied a reduction in the sentences of approximately one-third primarily due to the ages and ill health of the defendants. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the Attorney General's application to refer the sentences, held that those sentences were unduly lenient. The sentences were quashed and TA received a total sentence of six years' imprisonment whilst IA received a total sentence of 15 years' imprisonment. 

Damages – Measure of damages. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant owner of a vessel had suffered an immediate and direct loss on the occurrence of the damage to the vessel, and that that loss had not been avoided or mitigated by the receipt by the claimant of a government grant in respect of the claimant decommissioning the vessel. 

Criminal evidence – Practice. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated. In the instant case, the justices had been correct in law in rejecting the appellant's application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court.