Latest Cases

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant's appeal concerning an arbitration which arose out of a contract of affreightment (COA) made between the claimant, as owners and the defendant, as charterers of bulk carriers. The tribunal had erred in law by failing to hold that by being deprived, by the defendant's breach, of its right to receive freight, the claimant had suffered a loss, notwithstanding that the claimant had used two other companies to receive all inward freight earned under the COA and to pay all outgoing freight. The tribunal had not taken into account that, whilst one limb of the right to receive freight had been the right to receive it into one's bank account, another limb of that right had been the right to give it away. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-trial judgment relief. The Commercial Court granted the claimant lenders summary judgement on their claim against the defendants for sums outstanding under a syndicated loan facility agreement, along with interest. It ruled that the defendants' counterclaim for damages against the claimants could not provide them with an arguable defence to the claim because the 'no set-off' provisions of the facility agreement, under which the loan had been granted, were not subject to a test of reasonableness, under s 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, but applied with full contractual force. 

Conflict of interest – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division held that it had no jurisdiction in respect of claims for declarations of entitlement to shares in companies registered in the name of the deceased, which had been 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of a decision that he was not entitled to asylum and that the discretion under r 353B of the Immigration Rules would not be exercised in his favour. An error in the decision letter had neither amounted to maladministration nor been a material error. It was inconceivable that, if the error had not been made, a different conclusion would have been reached on the facts of the case. 

Administrative law – Judicial review. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of KPMG's approval of Barclays' offer of compensation for mis-selling certain interest rate hedging products. KPMG's duties had not had sufficient public law flavour to render it amenable to judicial review. 

Constitutional law – Heads of foreign states. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the trespass claimant's case and accepted the defendant's submission that in the case as pleaded, the claimant was indirectly impleading the state of Qatar and therefore Qatar was entitled to claim sovereign immunity in respect of the subject matter of the claims under the provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978. 

Criminal evidence – Sufficiency of evidence – Unreasonable verdict – Misdirection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted art and part of culpable homicide, along with a co-accused who was convicted of murder, the court rejected grounds of appeal contending (i) that the trial judge had erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient, alleged admissions by the appellant in text messages having been demonstrably wrong and there being no evidence which could corroborate them, (ii) that even if there had been a sufficiency of evidence the verdict was one which no reasonable jury could have reached, and (iii) that the judge erred in his directions to the jury about what was capable of amounting to corroboration of the texts. 

Negligence – Defective premises. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's appeal from a decision of a master granting the defendants summary judgment on the claimant's claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and s 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 in respect of the death of her husband. There had been no real prospect of success on any part of the claim and summary judgment had been properly granted. 

Damages – Personal injury. In an appeal against the method of calculation of damages made to the appellant following the death of his wife from mesothelioma, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the trial judge to assess the multiplier from the date of death, as previously decided by the House of Lords, rather than from the date of trial. The Supreme Court decided not to follow those earlier cases on the basis that the correct date as at which to assess the multiplier when fixing damages for future loss in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 should be the date of trial and not the date of death. 

Local government – Valuation for rating. Court of Session: Allowing appeals by an assessor against a Valuation Appeal Committee's decision concerning the valuation of six 'Run-of-the-River' hydroelectric schemes, the court held that the committee, in rejecting the assessor's argument that a sequential approach should be taken, erred in law in its interpretation of the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, and it quashed the valuations and remitted to the committee for reconsideration.