Latest Cases

Insurance – Reinsurance. The case concerned defendant insurance companies who had agreed to reinsure the claimant insurance company for a 50% share in respect of insurance provided by the claimant under a policy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dealt with two preliminary issues concerning the interpretation of the policy and in dismissing the appeal of the claimant upheld an earlier decision. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant's first claim, relating to a claim of negligence in the treatment of injuries that he had suffered whilst in the Army, was struck out following a number of delays. The claimant subsequently issued a second claim. That claim was also struck out, on the application of the defendant Ministry of Justice. The claimant appealed against that decision. The Queen's Bench Division held that the striking out of the second claim would be dismissed, and the claim would be allowed to proceed. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The defendant was convicted of a contract killing in Ireland and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was transferred to England to serve his sentence. The Secretary of State referred the case to the Administrative Court for the fixing of the minimum term which had to be served before he could be considered for parole. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the use of a gun and the defendant's assistance to the authorities. It found that the defendant would have to serve 11 years less 150 days spent on remand before he could be considered for parole. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 2(2) of Directive (EC) 2003/4 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on public access to environmental information) and repealing Council Directive (EEC) 90/313. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Fish Legal and Mrs Shirley and, on the other, the United Kingdom Information Commissioner and United Utilities Water and other water companies relating to the refusal by those companies of requests made by Fish Legal and Mrs Shirley for access to certain information relating to sewerage and water supply. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 71 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). The request had been made in proceedings between Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd and Inter-Zuid Transport BV concerning the payment of €500,000 compensation for damage suffered as a result of an international transport of goods by road. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimants were nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC). R was a failed asylum seeker liable to deportation and P was a criminal deportee. They sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to deport them to the DRC. The Administrative Court held that the decision that R would not be at risk of treatment contrary to art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been reasonable, rational and based on objective country origin information. However, there was a real and substantial risk that P would be subjected to further imprisonment and ill-treatment if returned. 

Libel and slander – Privilege. The claimant police officers issued libel proceedings against the defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment against the claimants on the basis that they would rely on the defence in Reynolds v Times Newspapers (see [1999] 4 All ER 609). The Queen's Bench Division, in granting summary judgment, held that there was no real prospect of the claimants defeating the Reynolds defence. 

Sentencing – Calculation of sentence – Curfew condition. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against sentence by two appellants who argued that credit should have been given for periods during which they were subject to curfew orders, the court held that in an appropriate case a court of first instance might justifiably regard the existence of a prolonged restrictive curfew having particular effects on a person as a mitigatory factor to which it could have regard in selecting the appropriate sentence, but the circumstances would have to be exceptional and in these two cases there was nothing of an exceptional nature. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants alleged that they had been induced, by the first defendant, into entering into a funding arrangement in respect of the purchase of season tickets for matches played by Rangers football club. A master granted summary judgment in favour of the claimants. The Chancery Division, in dismissing W's appeal, held that, on the facts, the master had been entitled to find that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted the interested party planning permission for a steel framed livestock building, a temporary caravan and associated development. The claimants sought an order quashing the grant of planning permission. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, found one technical breach by the failure to explain the reasons for the decision, but found no prejudice as a result. All other grounds of challenge similarly failed.