Latest Cases

Mental health - Persons who lack capacity - Inability to make decisions – . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, whilst the Court of Protection had been entitled to declare that the appellant had lacked capacity to consent to sexual relations, a cross-appeal by the local authority would be allowed because a declaration that the appellant had had capacity to decide where she resided was in direct conflict to further declarations that she lacked capacity to make decisions as to persons with whom she had contact, had not had capacity to consent to sexual relations and that she had not had capacity to make decisions about her care.

Injunction – Interim. The claimant's application for an injunction against the defendants succeeded in part, in a dispute concerning the ownership of the deceased's farm and business after his death. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate to make an injunction preventing the defendants from trespassing on the claimant's land, and restraining the defendants or anyone authorised by them from disposing of any items or equipment on the claimant's farm or his land without the consent of the claimant or the court. However, an interim injunction would not be granted with regard to alleged harassment.

Confidential information – Injunction. On the facts, there was no reason to depart from the default rule that privileged material should not be used or disclosed by an accidental recipient. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division granted the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) an injunction, restraining the intended defendant (R) from, among other things, using, publishing or disclosing an email, including a complaint, a photograph and legal advice, which had been sent to him in error. The court ruled that ASA would be likely to satisfy a trial court that, apart from the photograph (in respect of which no confidentiality was alleged), the information in the email and its attachments was confidential in nature, that it had come to the R's attention under circumstances importing a duty of confidence and that his disclosure, publication, or use, of that information would represent a breach of confidence.

Extradition – Extradition hearing. In approached the task of weighing the public interest in extradition against the effect that extradition to Poland would have on the appellant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judge erred in treating the appellant's offending as serious. The Administrative Court found that the offence of defrauding women to a total cost of £305 although not trivial, was not a serious case of fraud and was unlikely to attract a custodial sentence according to domestic standards.

Contract – Construction. The claimant company's claims for rectification of an agreement with the defendant or implication of a term into the agreement failed. The Commercial Court further held that the information which the claimant held was not confidential and any use of the information by the defendant would not be a breach of confidence.

Negligence – Medical negligence. A claim, alleging that the claimant's brain injury had been caused by negligence in his mother's antenatal care at the defendant's hospital, was dismissed. The Queen's Bench Division held that, applying settled principles to the facts of the case, the claimant had not proved any breach of duty on the part of the defendant, because, among other things, it had been reasonable for the doctor to have diagnosed, as she had, that the claimant's mother had been in threatened pre-term labour and, accordingly, to prescribe a tocolytic drug.

Extradition – Discharge. The appellant judicial authority's appeal against the respondent's discharge from extradition for spitting and kicking a police officer would be allowed, as the judge had been wrong for the reasons that he had given to discharge the respondent. However, the Administrative Court discharged the respondent from insulting a police officer because it was not an offence, without more, to insult a police officer in England and Wales.

Human rights – Freedom of expression. The defendant television company was found liable in damages to the claimants for intruding into their private life after it broadcast a programme which featured the eviction of the claimants from their rented home. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct to find the defendant liable, and that he had also correctly determined the quantum of damages awarded to the claimants, at £10,000 each.

Shipping – Insurance claim. The 'cost of repairing the damage' for the purpose of determining whether the vessel had been a constructive total loss (CTL) within the meaning of s 60(2)(ii) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, included all the reasonable costs of salving and safeguarding the vessel from the time of the casualty onwards, together with the prospective cost of repairing her. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant insurers' appeal against the Court of Appeal, Civil Division's decision on that issue. However, the Supreme Court further held that charges payable to salvors under the Special Compensation, Protection and Indemnity clause of Lloyd's Open Form were not part of the 'cost of repairing the damage' for the purpose of s 60(2)(ii) of the Act, and allowed the appellants' appeal on that matter. Consequently, the judge's order was set aside and the matter was remitted to him to determine, in the light of the Court's judgment, whether the vessel had been a CTL and what financial consequences followed from that.

Road traffic – Dangerous driving. The appeal concerned whether the prosecution had acted with reasonable diligence in fulfilling the obligation, in s 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, either to serve the defendant with a summons within 14 days of the offence, or to send notice of the possibility of the prosecution within 14 days of the offence to the driver or to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The defendant, who was convicted of dangerous driving, had not been warned, at the relevant time, of the possibility of a prosecution, because the notice of intended prosecution had been sent to the address of the previous owner of the vehicle, which was the registered keeper's address as it had appeared on the DVLA database. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against a conviction, held that the police had been entitled to conclude that the information the DVLA had provided had been accurate, given they had not been alerted to the real possibility of an error, and that, on the facts, the recorder had been entitled to conclude that the prosecution had acted with reasonable diligence.