William Byfield's Secret E-Diary

Practice – Personal injury. As a matter of law, an application, under s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, to dismiss a personal injury claim on the ground of fundamental dishonesty, might be determined at any time after the claimant's entitlement to damages had been established. Whether it should be determined before a quantum trial would depend on whether it could be determined justly at that time, which would depend on all the circumstances of that particular case. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the defendants' application, ruled that the claimant was presumed to have capacity, that he had been fundamentally dishonest in respect of his personal injury claim, arising out of a road accident, and that his litigation friend had participated in that dishonesty. The entire claim, including the 'honest part', was dismissed.

Contract – Breach. The proceedings concerned the use of a gas pipeline in the North Sea. The claimant company and the predecessors of the defendants entered into a contract, under which the claimant was entitled to a pre-determined capacity of pipeline gas. The claimant company sought various declarations as to its entitlement to withhold all or some of that amount; the defendants counterclaimed in debt for the full unpaid sum. The Commercial Court made ruling as to, among other things, the correct interpretation of the contract and whether the defendants had the right to restate certain capacity fees.

Town and Country Planning – Development plan. In upholding a decision of the High Court that the respondent's land was not suitable for registration as a town or village green, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was clear from the relevant development plan that to allow a registration of a town or village green within the settlement boundary would frustrate the broad objectives of the plan.

Insurance – Notification requirements. The claimant's remedial works had been carried out in order to mitigate a loss or potential loss that might have been the subject of a potential claim from a third party, such that the indemnity payable by the respondent insurer would be subject to that policy's limit of indemnity of £5m. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the insurer's appeal, further held that the claimant was precluded from claiming an indemnity under a second policy in respect of a potential third-party claim (or mitigation costs to avoid such a claim) that arose from circumstances notified to the first policy.

Personal injuries – Road traffic accident. The first defendant had failed to exercise the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable driver, so that he had been negligent when he had struck the claimant with his car. The Queen's Bench Division further held that the fair and equitable share of the claimant's blame was 30%, as there had been no sudden movement into the path of an oncoming vehicle.