Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The Queen's Bench Division ruled on a list of six disputed facts in connection with a clinical negligence claim arising out of the allegedly negligent manner in which the defendant had obtained the claimant's consent to surgery. 

Court of Appeal – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the third defendant company's application to vary an order requiring it to pay a judgment debt into court as a condition of the continuation of its appeal against a judgment awarding the claimant company (in liquidation) equitable compensation for dishonest assistance of breaches of fiduciary duty against the company by its sole director. The court took account of the position of third defendant's controlling shareholder and chairman, who was wealthy and able to provide it with financial assistance, and held that the third defendant had not established that it could not have satisfied the condition. In those circumstances, the court had no proper alternative but to dismiss the appeal. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the claimant company was entitled to summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award of in excess of £10m in respect of work at a power plant, which the claimant had been engaged by the defendant company to carry out. The defendant's challenge to the adjudicator's decision on the grounds that there had been breaches of natural justice and/or a wrongful delegation of the adjudicator's decision-making function, failed in every ground. 

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the legality of the procedure set out in the Operational Handbook of the Serious Fraud Office for dealing with material potentially subject to legal professional privilege embedded in electronic devices. The procedure was lawful and, in particular, the preliminary sift of paper or electronic material did not have to, as a matter of law, be conducted by third parties. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Technology and Construction Court ruled on the first application, under reg 96 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, to lift an automatic suspension on a contract granted following the defendant local authority's procurement tendering process for the provision of substance misuse treatment and harm reduction services for substance users in Sunderland. In dismissing the authority's application, the court held that the effect of reg 96 of the Regulations was that the court would determine an application to lift a suspension according to the same American Cyanamid principles that applied in determining applications for interim relief. There was a serious issue to be tried in the present case brought by an unsuccessful bidder and the balance of convenience laid in favour of maintaining the suspension. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal from the defendant employer, following the entering of judgment by consent, seeking to rely on fresh medical evidence in relation to the claimant's claim that he had suffered diffuse pleural thickening and asbestosis caused by his exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment. The order would be varied to read that there be judgment for the claimant on breach of duty, with the issues of causation and quantum to be assessed. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted to the effect that its scope included an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action had not been instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the refusal of indefinite leave to remain, which had been upheld by the Immigration and Asylum tribunals. At no point in the chronology of his case could the appellant have made an application for leave to remain which met the requirements of the Immigration Rules that had been in force at the time the application was made or at the time at which such application was decided. 

Customs and Excise – Excise duty. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(the FTT) upholding the taxpayer's appeal against an assessment to duty raised by the Revenue on the basis that, in contravention of various provisions of the Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979, he had wrongfully used rebated fuel in a tractor. The tribunal decided that by failing to take steps to initiate condemnation proceedings, the taxpayer had caused the tractor to be 'duly condemned' with the effect that the deeming provision in para 5 of Sch 3 to the Customs & Excise Management Act 1970 did apply. 

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The Court of Protection had previously held, in what was agreed to be a matter of general importance, that a deputy or an attorney acting on behalf of an applicant in regard to an award under the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority could accept and finalise such an award on behalf of a patient. The matter returned to court to address certain matters regarding wording of the appointment of a deputy and the terms of the trust.