Latest Cases

Criminal law – Cruelty. The defendant's conviction for cruelty was unsafe, as absent a clear instruction that, in the present case, the jury had to be sure both of an assault and of humiliation, it might have thought that humiliation had been, of itself, enough. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, further held that his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was unsafe, as no tailored and qualified direction that complaints were cross-admissible had been given.

Practice – Extension of time. The claimants' applications to extend time to register their claims so as to fall within the scope of a group litigation order were allowed. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division extended time for registration of claims, arising from the claimants' inhalation of harmful dust and fumes while employed in the steel industry, to 7 February 2019.

Building – Defect. In a dispute concerning serious fire safety defects in a development of two blocks of flats in Manchester, the freeholder, Zagora Management Ltd (Zagora), failed in its claim against the first defendant, Zurich Insurance plc (ZIP), which had issued building warranties in respect of the development. The Technology and Construction Court held that a claimed agreement to rectify was not a legally concluded agreement and that Zagora was not, and had never been treated as if it was, an insured under a building warranty in the relevant insurance policy. The individual leaseholder claimants succeed against ZIP (or more accurately, the third defendant company) on the grounds that the building was seriously defective and required major and expensive repairs which fell within the cover afforded by the relevant building warranties. However, the claimants claim in deceit against the second defendant, Zurich Building Control Services Ltd, which had inspected and certified approval of the development, failed on the facts.

Judicial review – Delay. When considering whether an application for leave to apply for judicial review had been sufficiently prompt, the presence or absence of prejudice or detriment was likely to be the predominant consideration. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal from Trinidad and Tobago, ruled that the judge had been required to have regard to prejudice and detriment before reaching a conclusion on whether to set aside leave to apply for judicial review, and, accordingly, he had exercised his discretion in setting aside leave on an erroneous basis. The court further ruled that the Court of Appeal's approach, which had sought to insulate prejudice and detriment, had also been flawed.

Sentencing – Sexual offence. The applicant was granted permission to appeal against the notification requirements imposed upon him pursuant to Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashed the applicant's sentence of two months' imprisonment, disposing with the notification requirement. However, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal either against the notification requirements or the certificate issued under s 92 of the SOA 2003.

Patent – Infringement. The claimant companies' claim concerning alleged infringement of their patent failed. The patent lacked inventive step over a piece of prior art. Further, the Intellectual and Property Court held that an element of the prior art fell within part of the patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The patent as granted was invalid and would remain invalid if amended as proposed.

Negligence – Duty of care. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant neurologist had, in breach of duty, increased the claimant's dosage of dopaminergic medication, and but for that breach, the claimant would have recovered from her impulse control disorder and would not have gone on to develop psychosis.

Company – Member. The petitioners succeeded on their petition, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006, complaining of unfairly prejudicial conduct by the first three respondent directors (the directors) in respect of the fourth respondent family company. The petitioners had acted in their capacity as the executors and trustees of a will made by the deceased former shareholder of the company (AG). The court had held in earlier proceedings that AG's estate had been transferred, so as to be vested in the petitioners. The Companies Court held, among other things, that the payment of excessive remuneration to the directors, and the failure to make a decision in good faith to pay dividends, amounted to unfairly prejudicial conduct. Accordingly, in circumstances where the third respondent did not wish to continue to be a shareholder in the company, and on the facts, the first two respondents were ordered to buy the petitioners' shares in the company at a fair value.

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. There was no blanket rule that a court or tribunal had to ignore what it saw and heard in court. It was quite legitimate for a court to take account of its own assessment of a litigant's capacity to participate effectively in its overall assessment of the evidence before it, including the expert medical evidence, if it considered it appropriate to do so. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's findings of misconduct and dishonesty, pursuant to which he was struck off the roll of solicitors.

Divorce – Financial provision. The discretionary trust funds, of which the respondent wife was the settlor and a beneficiary, were not an available resource in reliance on which any award could be made to the applicant husband. Further, the husband had not demonstrated a need for any substantial capital payment. Accordingly, the Family Court, among other things, dismissed the husband's claim for financial remedies on the parties' divorce.