Latest Cases

Local Government – Landlord and Tenant. A landlord could be liable under s 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 by reason of a defect which would have been discovered if the landlord had implemented a system of regular inspection. In so holding, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant tenant's appeal and held that to hold to the contrary negated the purpose and spirit of s 4 which imposed upon a landlord a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that persons who might reasonably be affected by a defect were reasonably safe.

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant sought damages for alleged clinical negligence, resulting in a delayed diagnosis of *** cancer. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the defendant's consultant *** surgeon, who had seen the claimant at an appointment in March 2011, had not been negligent in her management of the claimant, who had eventually been diagnosed in 2013. The court preferred the interpretation of the national guidelines contended for by the defendant's expert, and found that he represented a responsible body of medical opinion that would not have performed a biopsy in the circumstances that had existed in March 2011.

Road traffic – Goods vehicle. The justices had not erred in finding that the respondent's truck was constructed or adapted for one or more of the purposes of towing, lifting or transporting disabled vehicles. Accordingly, the Administrative Court, in dismissing the appellant Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency's appeal by way of case stated, held that they had not erred in finding the respondent not guilty of using on a road a goods vehicle for hire or reward, without an operator's licence, on the basis that the vehicle was exempt from the requirement to hold an operator's licence, as it was a recovery vehicle.

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The first claimant suffered a significant brain injury after he was struck by a car in France. The claimants brought a claim against the defendant company (the driver's insurer), which admitted liability concerning the first claimant, but not as to his injuries. The insurer made an interim payment. The claimants applied for a further interim payment. The Queen Bench Division, in dismissing their application, held that the likely capital sum of damages to be awarded to the first claimant was £660,000 and that, taken together, the figures claimed, which the court had accepted, totalled about £370,378, which was substantially below the figure of £660,00 for the interim payment sought, when added to the previous interim payments, to be a reasonable proportion of that capital sum.

Civil procedure – Personal injury – Abuse of process – Collateral attack on conviction: Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer, who was convicted of causing death/serious injury by dangerous driving, the jury having rejected his special defence of automatism, contended that the fatal accident occurred after he blacked out and alleged that the defender, his GP, was negligent in prescribing antihypertensive medication, seeking reparation for psychological injury resulting from the accident, the cost of instructing his defence and wage loss, the court held that the pursuer's case amounted to a collateral challenge to his conviction contrary to public policy and was therefore an abuse of process, and it dismissed the action on that basis.

Medical negligence – Liability – Causation – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by the surviving partner of a 77-year-old woman, seeking damages in respect of her death on 8 January 2013 due to ischaemic bowel and superior mesenteric artery thrombus, which he averred was caused by the negligence of a junior doctor then in the defenders' employment, the court held that the doctor was negligent in failing to advise the deceased that she required to be admitted to hospital and failing to carry out a rectal examination, that the pursuer had proved the necessary causal link between the doctor's negligence and the deceased's death; and it made awards of damages for inter alia, transmissible solatium of £2,000, and for distress, grief and loss of society of £75,000.

Bankruptcy – Sequestration – Gratuitous alienation. Court of Session: In an action in which the trustee on the sequestrated estate of a debtor sought the debtor's share of the sale proceeds of subjects where he and the defender had formerly lived as husband and wife, the subjects having been sold following their separation and the whole of the sale proceeds paid to the defender, the trustee contending that that was a challengeable alienation, after a debate on the pursuer's general plea to the relevancy of the defences the court excluded from probation those averments which bore to invoke the provisions of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 as a basis for resisting decree and quoad ultra allowed a proof before answer, leaving all pleas standing.

Personal injury – Solicitors. Where the appellant (BA) had admitted liability for an injury sustained by the respondent employee at work, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled that the district judge had been entitled to allow the costs claimed by the respondent, including the VAT, regardless of whether a medical reporting organisation (AML), which the respondent's solicitors had commissioned to secure medical reports and records in relation to the respondent's claim, had actually been obliged to charge VAT as it had. The court, in dismissing BA's appeal, held that the district judge had been amply entitled to take the view that the sums claimed in the relevant invoices had been reasonably and proportionately incurred and reasonable and proportionate in amount, so as to satisfy the requirements of CPR 44.3, and that it was readily comprehensible that the district judge had not thought that it had been incumbent on the respondent's solicitors to investigate the VAT position. Guidance was given on when VAT could be charged in cases where solicitors, instructed on personal injury claims, had used the services of a medical reporting organisation.

Settlement – Variation. The clamaint's application under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 to vary the trusts of a settlement made by him was allowed. The Business and Property Courts held, among other things, that it was in the interests of the unborn and unascertained beneficiaries as well as the trust as a whole for the court to approve the conferral of a power on the trustees to enlarge administrative powers, including a power to release or restrict them.

Shipping – Crew. In proceedings arising from the deliberate starting of a fire on a vessel which destroyed the cargo, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, clarified that as the fire had been deliberately caused with intent to cause damage, the owners of the vessel were exempt from liability under art IV.2(b) of the Hague-Visby Rules.