Latest Cases

Covenant – Breach. The County Court determined that the claimant was entitled to damages and injunctions in some of his claims against his neighbour in respect of breaches of covenants contained in the conveyance of the land. 

Contract – Repudiation. The Commercial Court gave judgment on seven preliminary issues concerning the termination of a contract, pursuant to which the claimant had provided claims handling services to the defendant insurance company. The preliminary issues concerned, among other things, repudiation and variation of the contract. 

National health service – Hospital. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's proceedings, seeking judicial review of the defendants' decision, identifying one hospital, as opposed to another, as one of the four specialist hospitals in the proposed redesign of hospital services. The decision had not been procedurally flawed and unfair, infringed the legitimate expectation arising from the consultation process or been substantively illegal, as having been a perverse decision which had been unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. 

Medical treatment – Adult patient. The Queen's Bench Division held that the case that the claimant had not been properly made aware of the nature of particular surgery, or any data about it, so that she had not given truly informed consent, had not been made out and, accordingly, the claim against the defendant NHS trust failed. 

Bankruptcy – Appeal. The Chancery Division, in dismissing an appeal against a bankruptcy order, held that there had been a clear and careful judgment by the district judge, who had reached a decision that had been well open to her on the evidence. 

Bank – Banker/client relationship. The Mercantile Court dismissed the claimant's proceedings for negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory duty against the defendant bank in respect of information and advice given in relation to an interest rate swap. As the bank had not given advice, its limited duty was not to misstate information and the single misleading statement made had not caused the claimant's loss. 

Medicine – Product licence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of judicial review proceedings, challenging the way the defendant Secretary of State, acting by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA), had passed information to the European Medicines Agency under the European Union pharmacovigilance regime. The judge had correctly found that the MHRA had not acted unfairly and had rightly refused a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on a father's appeal against child arrangements orders and an order made pursuant to s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. It held, among other things, that, in respect of the s 91(14) order alone, it was clear that the father had not had sufficient notice of the application that had been made and the manner in which it had been made had not complied with case law or proper procedure. On that one issue, the appeal would be allowed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to face trial for dishonestly obtaining property by deception. There had been a significant element of culpable delay, such that extradition was disproportionate to the rights of the appellant and his family, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Set-off – Right of set-off. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the grant of summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaim, held that it would not be inequitable for the defendants to rely on set-off in respect of a rebate and they were not estopped from doing so. Further, they had produced debit notes, despite the fact that the judge had not had physical copies.