Latest Cases

Indemnity – Negligence. Following a flood at a recently constructed block of flats, the building owner commenced proceedings against the main contractor which led to a series of claims against the chain of sub-contractors. The judge found that the mechanical sub-sub-sub-contractor (Robson) had been liable for two defects in workmanship which had been the principal cause of the flood with the result that the Robson was liable under the indemnity clause contained in the agreement by which it had been engaged by HSE. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld that decision and found that HSE's failure to inspect the work properly, even when the breaches should have been detected upon a reasonable inspection of the work, had not shut out its claim under the indemnity. It could not have been presumed that the parties had intended to confine the indemnity clause only to workmanship breaches which had been invisible upon reasonable inspection. 

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. 

Copyright – Infringement. In the course of proceedings concerning alleged breach of copyright regarding the cartoon character Betty Boop, the parties made a number of applications. The Intellectual Property and Community Trade Mark Court dismissed the defendants' application to have the court decline jurisdiction and for the proceedings to be stayed, and allowed the claimants' application for summary judgment. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Pursuant to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, a judge of the High Court could grant a 'leapfrog' certificate to enable the case to proceed directly to the Supreme Court. In the instant case of several hundred claims by Iraqi civilians seeking damages from the defendant Ministry of Defence for their allegedly unlawful detention and/or unlawful treatment by British armed, the Queen's Bench Division granted the application. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Chinese national's application for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) student was refused because he failed to provide a bank statement from 24 August 2012 and only provided the statement from 28/29 August. He issued judicial review proceedings, contending that para 245AA of the Immigration Rules applied because one bank statement 'from a series' had been omitted. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that something could not be 'missing' from a sequence until the sequence itself existed, which meant that at least the start and end of the sequence had to be in evidence. As the statement constituting or evidencing the start of the sequence had been missing, para 245AA of the Immigration Rules had not been engaged. 

Motor insurance – Rights of third parties against insurers. The claimant suffered personal injury as a result of a road traffic accident. The Motor Insurers' Bureau was the insurer of last resort became liable under the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 (the agreement). The claimant commenced proceedings. The claim was dismissed in the county court on the grounds that the claimant's claim was barred on grounds of public policy and the claimant knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of crime, namely the transportation of cannabis for the purpose of subsequent supply, and cl 6(1)(e)(iii) of the agreement was accordingly applicable. The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal on the ex turpi causa issue on the basis that the joint criminality was only the occasion, and not the cause, of the accident but dismissed it on the cl 6(1)(e)(iii) issue. The claimant issued a new claim for damages arising as a result of the defendant Secretary of State being in breach of art 1(4) of Directive 84/5 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles) (the second directive). The Queen's Bench Division held that the United Kingdom, in the legal personification of the defendant, was in plain breach of EU law, and the question of liability to pay compensation on principles in Francovich v Italian Republic therefore arose. 

Indemnity – Construction of indemnity clause. A foundation and the trustees of the foundation's pension scheme brought proceedings against the second claimant company for negligence and other wrongdoings. The claimant companies sought to recover sums due from the defendant group (RFIB) under an indemnity. The Commercial Court held that a limitation defence would, on the facts, not succeed. However, RFIB was only liable for the settlement sums to the extent that they were in reasonable settlement of the claim for losses occurring prior to the transfer date. It was not liable insofar as the sum represented settlement of the claim for losses occurring after that date. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The second defendant issued committal proceedings against the claimant companies and their director for breach of their duties to make full disclosure on their without notice application and failure to comply with an undertaking. The judge held that service of the committal proceedings out of the jurisdiction was authorised by CPR 6.36 and para 3.1(3) of Practice Direction 6B. The director appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct to find that service out of the jurisdiction on the director was permitted. 

Police – Discipline. The claimant police officers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the refusal of their appeals against the continued imposition of the service confidence procedure (SCP) against them. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decisions had sufficient public law element. However, the circumstances which led to a decision to invoke the SCP required that the court not intervene in the absence of very exceptional circumstances and that threshold had not been met. There was no patent and unanswerable illogicality/irrationality/unfairness in the defendant's decisions. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant housing trust's appeal against the findings of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning land development in Jamaica. The Privy Council decided that there was no sufficient basis for the Board to disturb the arbitrator's award.