Criminal law Appeal. The defendant nurse had been convicted of one count of wilful neglect of a person who lacked capacity contrary to s44 of the after the death of a resident in the nursing home she worked in following her decision not to administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation. She appealed against conviction after contending that the judge had failed to properly direct the jury as to the correct meaning of neglect and wilful. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeal and held that the judge's directions to the jury had been correct.
Injunction Exclusion of party from prescribed city area. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had been entitled to grant an injunction pursuant to s34 of the restraining the appellant, a member of an urban street gang, from entering a prescribed area of the city of Birmingham. The judge had been entitled to find that the appellant had been part of a gang who had demonstrated a deliberate and provocative act towards a rival gang. Further, the judge had been entitled to grant the injunction even though an anti-social behaviour order could have been granted, because, as long as the provisions of the Act had been met, there was power to grant the injunction notwithstanding the alternative remedy.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in granting a father less restrictive and unsupervised contact with his daughter in circumstances where the judge had recognised that a psychological risk assessment had been required of the father in order to assess any potential risks to the child of him having unsupervised contact.
Tort Joint tortfeasors. The defendant organisation 'Sea Shepherd UK' (SSUK) was part of an international effort to end illegal fishing of blue fin tuna. One campaign orchestrated by the American side of the organisation had caused damage to the claimant's vessel and released a large quantity of tuna from the nets and cages. The claimant issued proceedings seeking damages and alleged that SSUK had been a joint tortfeasor because it had acted in furtherance of a common design by supplying the vessel which had rammed its own. The judge held that SSUK was not a joint tortfeasor. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the judge had erred because the documentary evidence showed that SSUK had combined to secure the doing of acts which, in the event, had proved to be tortious and, in the context of the common purpose, the action of SSUK had showed that it had 'joined in' the common design by doing acts in furtherance of it.
Water and watercourses Flooding. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal of the Environment Agency, upheld a finding that it failed properly to interpret, apply or have regard to its own policy when it classified sluices on the Manchester Ship Canal as 'formal' flood defences on the ground that their 'primary' purpose was flood prevention, with the effect that land, which was owned and proposed for development by the claimants, had been at a higher risk of flooding. The sluices were an integral part of the canal, serving a dual purpose of providing flood defences and navigational purposes for the canal, but the defendant had not been entitled, applying its own policies which distinguished between 'primary' purposes and 'secondary' purposes of flood defences, to find that, by having a dual purpose, the sluices had had dual 'primary' purposes.
Albury Asset Rentals Ltd v Ash Manor Cheese Company Ltd (Pt 20 claimant) and Manton Hire and Sales Ltd (Pt 20 defendant)
Contract Damages for breach. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a decision that a party under a hire agreement for the provision of a forklift truck had not acted unreasonably in refusing to accept a proposal made by the supplier to remedy defects in the forklift. The defects had occurred because the forklift had been too big to move around the customer's premises, despite a representative of the supplier making necessary measurements, and the supplier's suggestion that the forklift be modified to meet the specifications had failed to answer the customer's concerns as to whether the modifications would have an impact upon the warranty, meet health and safety regulations or be permitted by the vehicle's owner, the finance company. Accordingly, the customer had not unreasonably failed to mitigate by refusing to accept the proposals.
Practice Pre-trial or post judgment relief. The claimant Serious Organised Crime Agency obtained a property freezing order (PFO) in respect of the defendants' property worldwide and subsequently obtained a civil recovery order (CRO). The defendants unsuccessfully applied for permission to appeal the CRO. Subsequently, judgment was given in Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry[ which changed the understanding of the scope of s316(4) of the . The defendants applied to vary the PFO to exclude overseas property from its scope. The judge, inter alia, granted the variation sought. SOCA appealed and the defendants applied, inter alia, to re-open the refusal of permission to appeal the CRO. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed SOCA's appeal and dismissed the defendants' application to re-open the refusal of permission to appeal the CRO.
Pleading Amendment. The claimant company ran a vehicle recovery business, performing work for the defendant police authority. In 2008, following the discovery of misconduct on the part of the claimant, the police terminated its contract with the claimant and excluded the claimant from a tender that was, at the material time, in progress. The claimant commenced proceedings. Following disclosure, the claimant sought to substantially amend its particulars of claim to include allegations of, inter alia, bad faith and bias. The application was refused as the amendment amounted to a new claim outside of the relevant limitation period and the claimant appealed. The appeal was dismissed and the judge declined to allow the claimant to introduce the new facts by an amendment to its reply. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal as the proposed amendments amounted to a new claim, but indicated that the claimant should be able to include limited new facts in an amended reply.
Shipping Charterparty. The Commercial Court granted the claimant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the defendants and granted an anti-arbitration injunction against the second defendant, in circumstances where the parties were involved in dispute over the chartering of a vessel and arbitration had been commenced in both England and Singapore.
Employment Contract of service. The respondent former minister had sought to bring proceedings in the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. The tribunal dismissed her claim, as she was not an employee. That decision was reversed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a decision subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division. The President of the Methodist Conference appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the respondent's relationship with the church was governed by its constitution, a Deed of Union and by standing orders of the conference. Further, a special arrangement of a contractual nature had not been entered through an exchange of letters.