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.
Housing Homeless persons. The claimant had applied for housing assistance from the defendant local authority. He had learning difficulties, so his brother assisted him with day-to-day tasks. His brother would have applied for housing assistance also, but was ineligible due to his immigration status at that time. The authority decided that the claimant was eligible for housing assistance and was unintentionally homeless, but he was not in priority need under s189(1)(c) of the because he received assistance from his brother and, in a homeless situation, he would not suffer injury or detriment or be less able to fend for himself than would the ordinary street homeless person. The claimant's appeal to the county court was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the judge had made no error of law. In interpreting the provision of s189(1) of the Act, consideration was given to R v Camden London Borough, ex p Pereira ((1998) 31 HLR 317) and to Osmani v Camden London Borough Council ().
Town and country planning Permission for development. The interested party obtained planning permission for a proposed redevelopment of Twickenham rail station. The claimant applied for judicial review of the grant of planning permission on the basis, inter alia, that the defendant local authority had failed to take into account a material consideration in the form of a report (the TAP report). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal as the failure of the authority's planning committee to take the TAP report into account had not amounted to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations.
Negligence Causation. When a fire broke out at the claimant's plant, it blamed the defendant who had had employees working at the plant engaged in the use of an oxy-propane cutting torch. The claim was dismissed, with the judge finding that there had been no breach of duty on the part of the defendant. The defendant's insurer, who was joined as a Pt20 defendant to the claim, was awarded 50% of its costs. The claimant and insurer appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal, finding that there was no basis on which to interfere with the judge's conclusions. The insurer's appeal was allowed as the judge had not identified any matter in its conduct of the proceedings that had justified depriving it of any part of its costs.
Patent Infringement. The Patents County Court held that two medical patents were invalid (see ). It gave permission to the defendant company, Novartis, to appeal. Novartis applied to the court, seeking an injunction to prevent the claimant company, Hospira, selling its own generic product. In dismissing the application, the court held that there was a real risk of loss to Hospira if the injunction was granted.
Landlord and tenant Eviction. The claimant had been a secure tenant of the local authority. While the claimant was on an extended holiday, the authority (which did not know of his absence) took possession of his flat and arranged to install a new tenant. The claimant issued proceedings seeking the payment of statutory damages for the loss of his right to occupy the flat. The judge ordered 90,500 damages be paid on the basis that it had to be assumed that the tenant's rights were for all purposes to be deemed to be those of a secure tenant, even after a hypothetical sale to a private landlord. The authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal, holding that the claimant's rights of occupation had, from the very grant of his secure tenancy, been vulnerable to being downgraded upon a sale by the authority to a private landlord and that downgrade could be taken into account in valuing a property for the purpose of s28 of the .
Practice Summary judgment. The Commercial Court considered applications by the claimant and defendant companies in a dispute over the distribution of the film 'West is West'. Both parties applied for summary judgment. The court held that the changing nature of the claimant's claim meant that it would not be satisfactory for the issues to be determined by way of summary judgment. It further held that, given that the defendant accepted that the claimant had a case with a real prospect of success, the case was not appropriate for summary judgment for the defendant. Both applications would therefore be dismissed.
Contract Damages for breach. The Commercial Court considered an appeal arising out of the repudiation of a contract to sell wheat between the claimant sellers and the defendant buyers. The claimant had contended that measures taken by Ukranian customs had the effect of restricting the export of wheat and that, accordingly, the contract was cancelled and they were discharged from liability to perform by virtue of the prohibition clause. The GAFTA Board of Appeal had upheld the defendants' claim for damages for wrongful repudiation of the contract by the claimants, having found that there had been no actual restriction on exports per se. The claimant appealed. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that a seller did not have to show an outright ban on exports to come within the prohibition clause. Whether such circumstances could fall within the prohibition clause depended on the particular facts. The Board had been fully entitled to reject on the facts their case that the requirements of Ukranian Customs constituted an executive act within the meaning of the prohibition clause.