Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The judge's construction of the English exclusive jurisdiction clause in a warranties agreement between the claimant aircraft manufacturer and the insured aircraft operator would be upheld and a final declaration would be granted that the English court had jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant insurers' appeal against the decision that proceedings commenced in Italy fell within the scope of the English exclusive jurisdiction clause. The judge's grant of a final declaration in the Italian Proceedings would however be set aside.

Practice – Personal injury. As a matter of law, an application, under s 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, to dismiss a personal injury claim on the ground of fundamental dishonesty, might be determined at any time after the claimant's entitlement to damages had been established. Whether it should be determined before a quantum trial would depend on whether it could be determined justly at that time, which would depend on all the circumstances of that particular case. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the defendants' application, ruled that the claimant was presumed to have capacity, that he had been fundamentally dishonest in respect of his personal injury claim, arising out of a road accident, and that his litigation friend had participated in that dishonesty. The entire claim, including the 'honest part', was dismissed.

Contract – Breach. The proceedings concerned the use of a gas pipeline in the North Sea. The claimant company and the predecessors of the defendants entered into a contract, under which the claimant was entitled to a pre-determined capacity of pipeline gas. The claimant company sought various declarations as to its entitlement to withhold all or some of that amount; the defendants counterclaimed in debt for the full unpaid sum. The Commercial Court made ruling as to, among other things, the correct interpretation of the contract and whether the defendants had the right to restate certain capacity fees.

Personal injuries – Road traffic accident. The first defendant had failed to exercise the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable driver, so that he had been negligent when he had struck the claimant with his car. The Queen's Bench Division further held that the fair and equitable share of the claimant's blame was 30%, as there had been no sudden movement into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

Insurance – Notification requirements. The claimant's remedial works had been carried out in order to mitigate a loss or potential loss that might have been the subject of a potential claim from a third party, such that the indemnity payable by the respondent insurer would be subject to that policy's limit of indemnity of £5m. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the insurer's appeal, further held that the claimant was precluded from claiming an indemnity under a second policy in respect of a potential third-party claim (or mitigation costs to avoid such a claim) that arose from circumstances notified to the first policy.

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been correct to hold that there had been no direct discrimination against the appellant because a hypothetical comparator with the requisite medical risk would have been treated in exactly the same way, even if they had not had the appellant's particular disability. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, further dismissed the appellant's appeal concerning the duty to make reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination.

Town and Country Planning – Development plan. In upholding a decision of the High Court that the respondent's land was not suitable for registration as a town or village green, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was clear from the relevant development plan that to allow a registration of a town or village green within the settlement boundary would frustrate the broad objectives of the plan.

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court held that the defendants' challenge to the validity of a patent for ophthalmic administration for the treatment of glaucoma succeeded. The patent was invalid for obviousness in the light of prior art, as also was a proposed amendment to the patent.

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The defendant local authority's decision to use allotment land as part of the site of a new primary school, and to serve the claimant and other allotment holders notices to quit were quashed, as the authority had 'appropriated' the land for use as allotments, such that it could not dispose of the land without the consent of the minister. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review.

Human rights – Right to life. The touchstone for state responsibility, under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was whether the circumstances of the case were such as to call a state to account. In the present case, such failings as there might have been, concerning a 52-year-old lady (J) with Down's syndrome and learning disabilities who had died in hospital, were attributable to individual actions and did not require the state to be called to account. Accordingly, the Divisional Court, in dismissing a judicial review claim brought by J's mother, held that, on the evidence, it had been open to the defendant coroner to conclude that art 2 had not been engaged by the circumstances of J's death. The court further held that the coroner's approach to the evidence in the inquest could not be faulted and that he had correctly decided not to leave a determination of neglect to the jury.