Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the part 20 defendant's appeal against the finding that the negligence of the defendant and part 20 claimant had not broken the chain of causation, as the judge had been entitled to conclude that the part 20 defendant's breach had remained an effective cause, in combination with the negligence of the part 20 claimant. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant planning permission for the development of a retail site. He contended that the environmental effects of the development should have been considered with the proposed development of an amusement park. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that the free-standing consequences of the amusement park were not to be considered as part of the retail site development. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The claimant claimed to have entered into a collaboration agreement with the defendants which entitled it to an interest in four large oilfields in Iraqi Kurdistan. It claimed specific performance, or alternatively damages of more than $1.6bn on various different contractual and non-contractual grounds. Gulf Keystone, and two of its subsidiaries, which were also defendants, denied that they were parties to the collaboration agreement; and all of the defendants denied any liability to Excalibur. The Commercial Court gave judgment in the dispute in favour of the defendants. 

Company – Shares. The claimant was the son of the second defendant. He worked with her and her husband, the first defendant, in building up a business that traded goods from the United Kingdom to Russia. A dispute arose as the beneficial ownership of the issued shares in a company owned by the parties. The claimant submitted that he beneficially owned one third of the shares in the company. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, a third of the shares in the company were owned by the claimant, and hence his claim would succeed. 

Employment – Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against the findings of the employment tribunal that she had not been disabled and had not been victimised. However, it allowed the employer's appeal against the tribunal's decision that the employee's suspension been an act of victimisation. 

Vexatious proceedings – Litigant in person. The applicant had been involved in a large amount of litigation against a range of parties in relation to the estate of his late brother. An order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant was made against him in 1991. He applied for it to be discharged. The Queen's Bench Division held that given the litigious conduct of the claimant since that time, it was not disproportionate to require the order to remain. 

Court-Martial – Courts-Martial Appeal Court. The Court Martial Appeal Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear an application for leave to appeal against an order lifting restrictions on the reporting of the name of a Marine convicted of the murder of an Afghan insurgent, together with the names of other Marines who were acquitted. Accordingly, that application would be considered as an application for judicial review by the Court sitting as a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division. It further held that there was no basis for assailing the findings that had been made by the Judge Advocate General in relation to the release to the media of a video and various images. The Divisional Court, in considering the application for judicial review, held that the identity of Marine A, who had been convicted of murder, had to be made public. The public interest in open justice was the same in relation to Marines B and C, who had been acquitted. As to Marines D and E, against whom proceedings had been discontinued, the matter would be remitted for consideration by the judge. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2 and 5(1)(a) and (b) 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 Corman-Collins SA, established in Belgium, and La Maison du Whisky SA, established in France, concerning a claim for compensation on account of the termination of an agreement for the distribution of goods between those companies. 

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.