Latest Cases

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.

Bank – Securities. The application of the first defendant finance company and the second defendant bank to strike out the claimant company's claim against them succeeded. The Chancery Division held that the proposition in the claim that the default in relation to events of default concerning two series of debt securities could in some way be attributed to the second defendant was unarguable.

Pension – Pension scheme. The appeal of two firefighters against the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Authority (the Authority) succeeded, in a dispute concerning whether certain allowances paid to firefighters in addition to their basic pay were 'pensionable pay' within the meaning of the firefighters' pension scheme. The whole of the day crewing allowance and the self-rostered crewing allowance were pensionable pay within the meaning of the schemes in question. The Authority's appeal against findings concerning the third firefighter succeeded, in that his additional contract to provide urban search and rescue cover was not included in the 2015 scheme.

European Union – Public health. On the proper interpretation of EU law, the appellant meat and poultry manufacturer's products fell to be categorised as mechanically separated meat (MSM) within point 1.14 of Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against Court of Appeal, Civil Division's decision, that had upheld the respondent Food Standards Agency's moratorium that desinewed meat could only be produced from residual meat on chicken and pork bones if it were classified and labelled as MSM.

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. In deciding afresh the meaning of the words complained of in a defamation action, the Supreme Court held that in the context in which the words had appeared, namely a Facebook posting, the wife's interpretation that the husband had grasped her by the neck was the obvious, indeed the inescapable, choice of meaning. On that basis, the defence of justification had been made out and the wife's appeal would be allowed.

Contempt of court – Civil contempt. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance which was not previously available to those sentencing for contempt of court, in particular involving a false statement verified by a statement of truth by an expert witness. Although the judge's order that the respondent be committed to prison for six months (suspended for two years) had been wrong in two respects, a more severe sentence would not be imposed and it was sufficient to declare that the sentence below had been unduly lenient.

Criminal law – Charge. The written charge could be regarded as issued only when the document comprising the written charge was completed, with all relevant details and in the form needed for service. Accordingly, the Divisional Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal by way of cases stated against his conviction for speeding, rejected the appellant's argument that that proceedings could not be 'issued' unless and until the relevant document (the written charge) was in the public domain, at least, to the extent that it had left the relevant prosecutor's office

Motor insurance – Personal injury claim. The claimant's claim against the second defendant insurer was struck out and summary judgment was granted in favour of the insurer. The claimant had suffered serious personal injuries as a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by the first defendant, who had not had a valid driving licence or insurance to drive the vehicle. The vehicle had been insured in the name of the first defendant's father. The claimant sought to set aside a declaration, granted to the insurer under s 152 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, that the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy on the grounds of material misrepresentations. The Queen's Bench Division ruled, among other things, that the insurer had a statutory defence to the claim based on s 152(2) of RTA 1988, and that there was no obligation on the court, or power, to disapply the domestic legislation on the basis of any claimed incompatibility with Directive (EC) 2009/103.

Landlord and tenant – Tenancy. The appellant tenants' appeal against a preliminary finding in a claim for new tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, concerning the sale of an airfield, was dismissed. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the judge had been entitled to approach the matter of the respondent freehold owner's company's lack of intent as he had done and that the judge had not failed to take proper account of the relevant development plan.

European Union – Citizenship. The concept of a 'direct descendant' of a citizen of the EU referred to in art 2(2)(c) of Directive (EC) 2004/38, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing certain other Directives, had to be interpreted as not including a child who had been placed in the permanent legal guardianship of a citizen of the Union under the Algerian 'kafala' system, because that placement did not create any parent-child relationship between them. However, it was for the competent national authorities to facilitate the entry and residence of such a child as one of the other family members of a citizen of the Union pursuant to art 3(2)(a) of that directive, read in the light of arts 7 and 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the refusal of the Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section, to grant the applicant child entry clearance for the territory of the UK as an adopted child of a national of the European Economic Area.