Latest Cases

Doctor – Negligence. The second defendant doctor was liable in negligence for the psychiatric damage which the claimant had sustained and its consequences by virtue of the religious practices and religious doctrines he had imposed on her. However, the Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim against the first defendant surgery proprietors, held that they were not vicariously liable for that conduct, as religious proselytisation could not fairly be regarded as a reasonably incidental risk to the business of carrying on a doctors' surgery.

Mental health – Medical treatment. The applicant NHS Trust was successful in its application for permission to administer a treatment on the respondent, who had been diagnosed with Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease but lacked capacity to make decisions regarding his treatment. The Court of Protection found that it would be in the respondent's best interests to receive the treatment, despite it being new and untested.

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The applicant father was successful in his application for a summary return of the child to Latvia. The Family Division found that the child had been habitually resident in Latvia at the relevant time of removal from the jurisdiction by his mother and accordingly he should be returned to Latvia within 14 days.

Equity – Undue influence. The transfer of certain property owned by the claimant father to the defendant son, objectively considered, had called for an explanation. In the absence of an explanation which afforded a reasonable explanation for the transaction, and in the context of the relationship of trust and confidence that had been found to exist between the parties, the presumption of undue influence by the defendant was made good. On the basis that the defendant had failed to rebut that presumption, the Business and Property Courts allowed the claimant's application for an order setting aside that transfer.

Shipping – Cargo. A carrier had the legal burden of proving that it had taken due care to protect the goods from damage, including due care to protect the cargo from damage arising from inherent characteristics. The Supreme Court further held that, to rely on the exception for inherent vice, the carrier had to show either that: (i) it had taken reasonable care of the cargo, but the damage had occurred nonetheless; or (ii) whatever reasonable steps might have been taken to protect the cargo from damage would have failed in the face of its inherent propensities.

Financial services – Financial advice. The claimant alleged victims of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme failed in their claims against the defendant company for which the company of the scheme's mastermind had become appointed representative. The Commercial Court dismissed claims based on s 39 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, ostensible and actual authority, and breach of the supervisory duties.

Immigration – Leave to remain. However the appellant's argument as to the risk of persecution if he relocated to Kabul was characterised, it had not given rise to a successful public law challenge to the findings of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, further held that, although the FTT's reasoning on the reasonableness of relocation could have been fuller, the findings had been plainly sufficient to support the conclusion on the point.

Local authority – Powers. The provision in art 2(1)(a) of the GLA Roads and Side Roads (Transfer of Property etc) Order 2000 (the Transfer Order) for the transfer to the appellant, TfL, of 'the highway' in relation to a Greater London Authority road and the identical provision in s 265(1)(a) of the Highways Act 1980 in relation to a trunk road, was not limited to the property transferred within the vertical plane above and below the highway to the zone of ordinary use. The Supreme Court so held in allowing TfL's appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division that had held that the purpose of the Transfer Order, like the purpose of all provisions for statutory vesting of property in highway authorities, was to vest in TfL only those ownership rights in the vertical plane of the highway which were necessary to enable it to perform its functions as highway authority.

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The appeal of the appellants (together, West Ham) in a dispute concerning stadium use by West Ham Football Club was allowed. West Ham challenged the litigation privilege claimed concerning a number of documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the ground on which privilege was claimed for the documents was that they had been created with the dominant purpose of discussing a commercial settlement of the dispute when litigation with West Ham had been in contemplation, and that a claim in those terms did not fall within the scope of litigation privilege.

Landlord and tenant – Fixtures. The judge's previous conclusion that the claimant companies were the owners of certain items of property (the relevant items) situated at premises belonging to the third defendant company, led to the judge granting the claimants' application for an injunction requiring the second and third defendants to provide access to those premises so that the claimants could recover those items, and consequently, delivery up of those items was ordered. However, following the raising of a new point by the defendants before the terms of the judge's order had been approved, the Business and Property Courts considered that that new point raised a serious issue to be tried as to whether those items were tenant's fixtures, as argued by the defendants, or merely chattels. Consequently, the court revisited the judge's previous decision and refused the order for delivery up of the relevant items.