Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant student's application for judicial review of the defendant Local Authority's decision that the claimant had been a part time student and liable to council tax. The claimant had not been a student within the meaning of the Council Tax Discounts Disregards Order 1992, SI 1992/548 and the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claimants brought an action in negligence against the defendant solicitors. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants had a justifiable grievance about the service that they received from the defendant. Moreover, they had taken reasonable steps to respond to the situation in which they found themselves by expending money which was intended to, and in the event did, ameliorate their position. However, because of the way in which they went about their mitigation, the law was unable to offer them anything substantial by way of redress for the defendant's negligence. 

Costs – Assessment. The respondent solicitor rendered various bills to the appellant company. The bills were sent for detailed assessment and a master made such an assessment pursuant to s 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The master considered that the schedule supplied consequent on a court order did not comply with that order and stayed the assessment. The appellant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the master had been entitled to have come to the decision to which he had. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 offended arts 5, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court dismissed her claim and she appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that art 5 of the Convention had no application and no breach of art 14 of the Convention had been established. Further, s 60 of the Act was not arbitrary, it was in accordance with the law and justified pursuant to art 8(2) of the Convention. 

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. 

Extradition – Hearing. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision to extradite him pursuant to s 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The district judge had been correct in his conclusion that the respondent was a judicial authority within the meaning of s 2 of the Act. The judgment in Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania v Bucnys [2013] UKSC 71 could not be read as seeking to cast any doubt upon the conclusion reached in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] 4 All ER 1249 that a public prosecutor within a member state was a judicial authority. The effect of Bucnys had to be that the conclusion reached in Assange that a public authority was a judicial authority remained valid. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant suffered a soft tissue injury to his neck as the result of a road traffic accident. He was awarded damages of £2,500 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gianda Blasco, SA (Gandia) and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Sachi) concerning the application by Gandia for a declaration of invalidity in respect of a Community design held by Sachi intended to be applied to armchairs and loungers.