Contempt of court Contempt of court for making false statement in document verified by statement of truth without honest belief in its truth. The Queen's Bench Division granted the applicant insurer permission to pursue proceedings for contempt of court against the respondent in respect of three of the four alleged grounds. There was a strong prima facie case on those three grounds and, in the interests of justice and the overriding objective, it was proportionate for contempt proceedings to be pursued.
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against an order giving summary judgment to the claimant. The court had not erred in making a declaration that the claims made by the defendant in proceedings in Milan fell within the scope of agreements between the parties that the English courts were to have jurisdiction to determine their dispute.
Personal injuries Statement of claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that judgment would be entered for the defendant company in a case where the claimant brought a claim for personal injury arising out of an accident which he claimed to have suffered whilst working for the defendant. In the circumstances, the claimant was unable to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, he had suffered the accident as alleged in his particulars of claim.
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the defendants' application for the court to decline jurisdiction, held that it had jurisdiction to entertain a claim brought by the claimants as lenders against the defendant borrowers and guarantors pursuant to facility agreements and guarantees. The court held that the enforcement proceedings which had been lodged in India were not substantive debt proceedings and therefore, were not parallel to the present proceedings lodged in the English court.
Motor insurance Using vehicle or causing or permitting vehicle to be used on road without policy being in force. The Court of Appeal Civil Division dismissed the claimant driver's appeal and held that the liability of someone who permitted another to use a vehicle without an insurance policy was not a liability which was itself required to be insured under of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Estoppel Res judicata. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant general practitioner was estopped from pursuing his claim in the High Court for breach of contract and tortious conspiracy, in circumstances where he had previously brought a claim in the employment tribunal, and the previous claim, which had been based upon the same factual foundation as the present claim, had been dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd (a company incorporated in Hong Kong) and another v Independent Power Tanzania Ltd (a company incorporated in Tanzania) and others
Practice Summary judgment. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant banks' applications for summary judgment in proceedings arising out of the financing of a power plant in Tanzania. None of the defendants had any defence to the claim. The claimants were entitled to the declarations sought and judgment for the sum of the debt owed.
Damages Personal injury. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against a finding that the third column of Table 6B of CPR 45.29E, which covered the amount of fixed costs recoverable under the Pre-Action protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employer's Liability and Public Liability) claims, was applicable to his case. The court held that a disposal hearing listed for the quantification of damages payable after judgment under CPR 26, PD 12.2(1)(a) was a trial within the meaning of CPR 45.29E(4)(c).
Mental health Patient. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that it was not lawful for the defendant local social services authority to refuse to provide after-care services to the claimant, under of the Mental Health Act 1983, on the basis that he had no need of such provision because he was able to fund it himself from his personal injuries damages.
Negligence Medical practitioner. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's (C) claim against the defendant Secretary of State in a case where C brought a claim for damages arising out of personal injury suffered during her birth. In the circumstances, there was no legitimate basis for concluding that the notes made of C's birth had incorrectly recorded her position during birth, and excessive force had not been used to deliver her in accordance with the standards applicable at the time for a birth complicated by shoulder dystocia.