‘The High Court held that the most natural reading of a deed granting a right of way “over the track or way” was to limit the right of way to the track that was actually in use at the time of the grant in 1979. The claim concerned the existence, location and in particular, the width of a right of way. The Claimant sought injunctions and damages for interference.’
Tanfield Chambers, 12th October 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The infringement that was the subject of the appeal was the lifting of a fragment of a photo of the great man’s wedding photo in 1937 from the VisitWales.com website and its reuse on a website that advertises holiday cottages in Wales. Liability was not contested so the hearing before Deputy District Judge Vary was an assessment of damages only. According to paragraph [7] of Judge Hacon’s judgment, the learned deputy district judge awarded £250 on the user principle and declined to award additional damages under s.97 (2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the CDPA”). He ordered the copyright owner to pay the infringer’s travelling expenses on the ground that the claimant had failed in its obligation under CPR 1.3 to help the court further the overriding objective by bringing proceedings in the Irish Republic for infringement of the corresponding Irish copyright and threatening similar proceedings in the USA to maximize cost and pressure on the defendant to settle.’
NIPC Law, 15th October 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Einstein famously said that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. The nature of time is not an easy concept to grapple with and I had a similar (albeit not quite so ethereal) experience preparing a recent seminar on the practical effect of the decision in Carillion Construction v Emcor Engineering Services relating to contiguous (or rather non-contiguous) extensions of time.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 2nd October 2017
‘Rosalind English talks to David Prest about a recent High Court ruling on damages: Can someone who has been rendered infertile claim the costs of surrogacy abroad? A hospital admitted negligence in failing to diagnose the claimant’s cervical cancer. The chemotherapy and radiation treatment which followed rendered her infertile, but just before the treatment, her eggs were harvested and frozen. The court was asked to consider whether damages could include the cost of commercial surrogacy, an arrangement which is not legal in this country.’
Law Pod UK, 29th September 2017
Source: audioboom.com
‘Commercial surrogacy arrangements are considered to be against public policy in the UK and therefore illegal. Surrogacy in the UK is only legal where there is no intention to make a profit – though reasonable expenses are recoverable. Where legal surrogacy is
carried out the surrogate mother is the legal mother of the child. In this case the claimant had suffered injury due to the hospital’s failure to diagnose her cervical cancer in time. She had to undergo chemotherapy and radiation treatment which, amongst other things, damaged her uterus so she was unable to bear and carry a child. Before the treatment she had her eggs frozen.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st October 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Victims of the contaminated blood scandal in the 1970s and 80s have won the right to launch a High Court action for damages.’
The Independent, 26th September 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘On 17 September 2017 the new, 14th, Edition of the Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases was published: replacing the previous 13th Edition, published in September 2015.’
Zenith PI Blog, 22nd September 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘In XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 2318 (QB) Sir Robert Nelson considered the difficult issue of damages for surrogacy costs.’
Zenith PI Blog, 19th September 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Leading personal injury lawyers told yesterday’s PI Futures conference that there is “all to play for” on the Civil Liability Bill as a “nervous” governments seeks to avoid a damaging parliamentary defeat.’
Legal Futures, 20th September 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited) [2017] EWHC 1517 (QB) His Honour Judge Gosnell (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered some key issues relating to fatal accident damages.’
Zenith PI, 10th September 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A couple whose garden has repeatedly flooded are suing the previous owners, claiming a Facebook photograph proves they were aware of the problem but failed to highlight it.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd September 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In 2006, Swynson Ltd proposed to lend £15m to finance a management buy-out. It instructed Lowick Rose LLP (then called Hurst, Morrison Thomson (HMT)) to carry out due diligence on the target company. HMT did so negligently. But for its negligence, the loan would not have been made.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 28th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 21 July, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) issued its decision dismissing an application for a collective proceedings order (“CPO”) in the MasterCard litigation (Walter Merricks v MasterCard Inc & ors [2017] CAT 16). It is a decision whose significance goes beyond the fact that it is a further illustration of the difficulties of advancing opt-out class actions. It remains the case that, despite nearly two years having elapsed since implementation of schedule 8 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, no CPO has been made, nor is one likely to be made at any time soon. Whilst the decision is subject to Mr Merricks’ right of appeal, this alerter briefly considers the implications for the management of class actions. In very broad terms, the decision underlines the requirements of a high level of precision and a sound and principled evidential basis in relation to: (1) the definition of the class; (2) the calculation of aggregate class damages; (3) the means for distributing damages within the class; and (4) the elements of a funding agreement.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th July 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The amount of a costs order in the employment tribunal (ET) can be made subject to detailed assessment, to be carried out (either by the ET or by a county court) in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) (rule 78, ET Rules). It was traditionally understood that this application of the CPR to ET procedure was limited to the assessment of the level of costs, as opposed to the separate question of whether costs should be ordered at all. As reflected in the CPR, “costs follow the event” in the civil courts. In contrast, the ET has a limited costs jurisdiction, which depends on the existence of improper or unreasonable conduct and the exercise of discretion in the presence of such conduct as to whether to award costs.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Entertainer Michael Barrymore is entitled to more than nominal damages from Essex police over a wrongful arrest which he says destroyed his career, a high court judge has ruled.’
The Guardian, 18th August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Sun newspaper is to pay “substantial damages” to former EastEnders boss Sean O’Connor, after wrongly accusing him of bullying.’
BBC News, 4th August 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A law firm with offices in Italy and England has lost its appeal against a High Court ruling that it was under a duty to warn British and Irish property investors of the risks of investing in a part of Italy associated with organised crime.’
Legal Futures, 2nd August 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Madonna and her twin daughters, Stella and Estere, have accepted undisclosed damages from Associated Newspapers over a “serious invasion of privacy”.’
The Guardian, 27th July 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A record-breaking collective claim against MasterCard was thrown out by the Competition Appeal Tribunal today in a major blow to the growth of funded class actions in the UK. The case, brought by former financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks on behalf of 46 million consumers who were alleged to be victims of excess ‘interchange fees’ charged by card companies, claimed £14bn in damages. It was the largest sum claimed in English legal history.’
Law Society's Gazette, 21st July 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2017