Latest Cases

Gaming – Lawful and unlawful gaming. The claimant casino issued proceedings to recover £1m on unpaid cheques provided by the defendant in exchange for chips, which she had lost. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that there had been no unlawful giving of credit to the defendant. Further, the defendant had not established any claim in negligence, as it was not fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care on the claimant to prevent her from using her cheque cashing facility. 

Court of Appeal – Leave to appeal. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners had issued proceedings regarding a missing trader intra-community fraud. Following a trial of sample claims, some of the allegations were found to be proved and the defendants were ordered to pay the sums lost in revenue. The defendants sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ordered that conditions regarding payment into court of the judgment sum be attached to the application for permission to appeal and ordered a stay of the execution of the judgment between the payment into court of the judgment sum and determination of the appeal. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant chartered accountants and licensed insolvency practitioners alleging that they had negligently caused the claimants' financial loss as their trustees in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division ruled on the defendants' appeal and the claimants' cross-appeal following orders made by the deputy master in relation to the claimants' particulars of claim. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant, a 16-year-old young woman, had been living with a maternal aunt and uncle, and subsequently went to stay with a paternal aunt. The defendant local authority concluded that the claimant was not a looked after child and, therefore, was not eligible for certain financial allowances. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence showed that the claimant was not a looked after child and that the authority had not sought to sidestep its duties. 

Reparation – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought damages in respect of loss caused by fire in a farmhouse and outbuildings they owned, averring that the fire damage was caused as a result of fault and negligence of the defenders, firefighters having concluded that they had extinguished a fire at the farm but the fire having re-ignited after their departure, the court concluded that the pursuers had pled a relevant case which entitled them to proof before answer. 

Shipping – Collision. In June 2011, during high winds at the port of Genoa, the defendant owners' ship struck a crane belonging to the claimant terminal. The claimant brought proceedings for negligence. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the terminal was entitled to judgment against the owners. The owners' case on contributory negligence would be dismissed. 

Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The first and second defendants were convicted of conspiracy to supply amphetamine, and the third defendant was convicted of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case on the basis of fresh evidence as to the principal witness for the prosecution. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the addition to the opprobrium of the witness of one post-trial allegation would not have been of the significance necessary to cast doubt upon the safety of the defendants' convictions. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The parties were both companies which, among other things, provided vehicle rental services. The proceedings concerned alleged infringement by the defendants of the claimant's trade mark. In the course of proceedings, the claimant made an application seeking to adduce survey evidence. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate for the survey evidence to be adduced. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought proceedings against various defendants, including Siemens Public Ltd Company, alleging infringement a patent concerning a method of operating a pitch-controlled wind turbine. The claimant applied for an order that Siemens provide it with, among other things, information as to its customers within the jurisdiction of the court. The Patents Court held that the balance of justice was in favour of making a Norwich Pharmacal order for disclosure.