‘Judges can make issues-based costs orders under part 36 but only if it is unjust to deprive a successful claimant of all or part of their costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled in overturning such an order.’
Litigation Futures, 15th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This paper seeks to explore how causation and quantum should be determined where a pre-existing injury is worsened, or an additional injury is super imposed upon a pre-existing injury, by a Defendant’s negligence.’
Byrom Street Chambers, 30th March 2016
Source: www.byromstreet.com
‘In English law there is a presumption in favour of freedom of contract. The penalty rule represents an exception to that principle. A properly drafted liquidated damages clause entitles the claimant to recover the amount stipulated in the clause even if the actual loss is less than the amount payable. The inclusion of the clause is intended to provide certainty, to make the recovery of damages easier and less costly and, from the opposite perspective, to limit liability.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th April 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Today’s banks are in receipt of the largest fines ever imposed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or its predecessor the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and although they are taking responsibility for a number of failings (eg PPI, Derivatives, LIBOR and FOREX), restrictions on recovering loss, in particular where consequential loss is concerned, have come under significant scrutiny. This article examines the measure of loss in tort and contract, and particularly explores investors’ difficulties when making claims for loss of profit caused by mis selling.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 31st March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The law on recovery for damages in wrongful birth and wrongful conception cases has been settled for some time; since the cases of McFarlane v Tayside Board of Health [2000] 2 AC 59, Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 and Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 88 there has been little, if any, disruption to the status quo. It is clear however that there do remain some unanswered questions regarding the limits of recovery in this area; one such query arose in the more recent case of Whitehead v Searle [2008] EWCA Civ 285, where the rights of a father in these actions was considered.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Proprietary estoppel claims can give rise to a particular issue: should the measure of the claimant’s relief be compensation for detriment or, more generously, enforcement of the relevant promise or assurance?’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd and another v Tixdaq Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch)
‘The claimants owned the copyrights in television broadcasts, and in films incorporated within such broadcasts, of most cricket matches played by the English cricket teams in England and Wales. The defendants operated a website and various mobile applications (“Apps”) which used screen capture technology to copy clips of broadcast footage of sporting events and uploaded those clips to the Apps. The defendants’ uploaded a considerable number of clips of broadcasts of cricket matches, lasting up to eight seconds, to the Apps where they could be viewed by users. Users could also upload clips, together with commentary, on to the website and the defendants’ social media accounts. The claimants brought a claim for damages, alleging uploading the clips prima facie constituted breaches of sections 16, 17 and/or 20 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The 1988 Act did not require either broadcasts or films to be original in order for copyright to subsist in them. An issue arose as to the applicable test for substantiality in circumstances where there was no intellectual creation. The question went to both infringement, which required an act such as reproduction or communication to the public of the whole, or any “substantial part” of a work, and also to the applicability of the fair dealing defence in section 30(2) of the 1988 Act, on which the defendants relied.’
WLR Daily, 18th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has ordered global firm King & Wood Mallesons to pay damages over negligent advice it gave to a commodities business intelligence firm – although they were only 5% of the sum claimed.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th April 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner and another [2016] EWCA Civ 180
‘The defendants were a former director and manager of the claimant company who were found to have breached restrictive covenants not to compete, solicit clients or use confidential information belonging to the company. Losses were difficult to quantify. The judge gave the claimants the option of recovering damages on the Wrotham Park basis, being the amount which would notionally have been agreed between the parties, acting reasonably, as the price for releasing the defendants from the restrictions.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has awarded the family member of an EU national a total of £136,048 in damages. The award consists of £76,578 for false imprisonment and £59,470 for breach of EU law. The Home Office is also criticised for having made “inaccurate and misleading” submissions to previous judges on multiple occasions and the damages include not just compensatory damages for lost earnings and distress but also special damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages.’
Free Movement, 30th March 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘A settlement agreement provides a central London law firm with a “complete defence” against a £70m professional negligence claim brought on behalf of a Russian oil company, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 30th March 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) has failed in its bid to overturn a landmark ruling in which it was ordered to pay approximately £1.2 million in damages for infringing the privacy of eight individuals through phone hacking.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Knauer (Widower and Administrator of the Estate of Sally Ann Knaur) v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, the Supreme Court has held that the correct date as at which to assess the multiplier when fixing damages for future loss in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 should be the date of trial and not the date of death. In doing so it refused to follow two decisions of the House of Lords (Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556 and Graham v Dodds [1983] 1 WLR 808) pursuant to which the relevant date had been the date of death.’
Henderson Chambers, February 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘A law firm that admitted negligence has fought off a £100,000 claim after the court decided no harm was caused by its mistake.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 21st March 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Bill and Mary Nicholson were awarded compensation after the Cedar tree’s roots caused serious damage to their semi-detached £400,000 property’
Daily Telegraph, 21st March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected jailed publicist Max Clifford’s attempt to limit his costs to only £5,000 in a privacy claim by making an “inadequate” Calderbank offer.’
Litigation Futures, 21st March 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A Family Court judge has ordered a council to pay a 10-year-old boy £5,000 in damages after it failed for three years to seek to revoke a placement order.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A wealthy couple who said “shattering” helicopter noise stymied their hopes of selling their £4m home to Strictly Come Dancing presenter Tess Daly have scored a landmark High Court victory.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Surrey Police issue unreserved apology and pay substantial damages after admitting failings in the case of Breck Bednar, the 14-year-old schoolboy who was groomed online and then murdered by sadistic killer Lewis Daynes.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Lafferty v Newark & Sherwood District Council [2016] EWHC 320 (QB). Does section 4(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 create a strict liability on the landlord for any defect, such that it covers latent or undetectable defects? The short answer is no. This appeal sets out why.’
Nearly Legal, 6th March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
© Inner Temple Library 2024