Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held dismissing a claim for damages for personal injury that although the defendant NHS Trust had been negligent in discharging the claimant without making arrangements for his blood to be re-taken, the delay had not caused the claimant to become 'appreciably worse'. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division made rulings in the defendants' application for summary judgment, in proceedings relating to the administration of a pension scheme. The court held that the parts of the claim against the first defendant, which the defendants sought to have struck out, would be allowed to remain, as the claimants had a realistic and not merely fanciful prospect of success on the issue of novation. The proceedings against the second defendant were be struck out on the basis that they were time-barred. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division was not prepared to accede to H's request to strike out W's claim for financial relief under pt III of the Matrimonial and the Family Proceedings Act 1984, on H's spurious assertion of diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association's application for judicial review, seeking a declaration that Transport for London's (TfL) construction of the East-West Cycle Superhighway without planning permission constituted a breach of planning control. Planning permission was not required, as TfL had not erred in law and had not been irrational in concluding that there had been no significant adverse environmental effect from the proposal as a whole. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against dismissal of a claim for negligent misstatement. The judge had found that there had been two negligent misstatements, but that the claimant could not show that, but for the making of those statements, the job offer that he had had would not have been withdrawn. The judge's approach had been impeccable. 

Divorce – Appeal. The Family Division allowed an appeal by the wife from an order of a deputy district judge who had based her order on a finding that the wife was a bigamist. The court held that those findings and conclusions were not fairly and reliably justified by the evidence in the case and therefore the case would be remitted for reconsideration. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled on the reference made to it by L, the sole director and shareholder of the applicant company, following a decision by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to refuse the applicant's application under s 55A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 for permission under Pt 4A of that Act to carry on a range of regulated activities. The tribunal remitted the application to the FCA, with a direction that the FCA reconsider and reach a decision in accordance with the tribunal's findings that L had been subject to an unjustified accusation. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Chancery Division ruled on an application by a Russian bank and its liquidator to commit the defendant Russian banker, Sergei Pugachev, for contempt of various orders of the court, including orders prohibiting him from leaving the jurisdiction and from dealing with his assets. It held that the defendant was liable in respect of 12 of 17 allegations of contempt. Further submissions were to be heard in respect of sentence. 

Human rights – Retrospective punishment. The European Court of Human Rights found that art 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been violated by the applicant's conviction for contempt of court by going on the internet to conduct research into the previous conviction of the defendant in the case in which she had been sitting as a juror. The test for contempt of court had been both accessible and foreseeable, and the law-making function of the courts had remained within reasonable limits. 

Financial Services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)(the tribunal) held that the correct construction of art 58(3)(c) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013, SI 2013/1881, was that the applicant's interim permission which arose under art 56 of that Order ceased to have effect when a Decision Notice was given in respect of the applicant's application for a Pt 4A permission under the Financial Services Act 2000.