Lat (a child suing by his mother and litigation friend Pat) v East Somerset NHS Trust (now Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)
Damages Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was not entitled to the interim payment in the amount sought but she was however entitled to an interim payment in the sum of 1,100,000. When that was added to the 250,000 already paid, the total interim payments of 1,350,000 represented approximately 81% of the total likely capital award as assessed by the judge hearing the matter.
Bank Interest rate swap agreement. The Mercantile Court allowed the defendant bank's application for summary judgment against the claimant, where all of the claimant's valid causes of action in relation to the alleged mis-selling of interest rate swaps had been fully and effectively compromised by his signature of a settlement agreement, so that they could have no real prospect of success.
Building contract Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimants' application for summary judgment to enforce the decision of an adjudicator in a building dispute. It was not the case that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending an enforcement claim. The court was not in a position to grant summary judgment to the claimants for enforcement of the decision.
Practice Summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against summary judgment granted against the claimant on its negligence claim against the defendant surveyor where the claimant alleged loss as a consequence of the defendant's valuation of a development which the claimant had taken as security for a refinancing transaction. The 'but for' test of causation did apply, but when correctly applied it led to the conclusion that the defendant was liable to the claimant for the whole of the loss that flowed from its negligent valuation. The judge's application of the 'but for' test had failed to take into account the structure of the refinancing transaction.
Damages Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant, who was awaiting a trial of assessment of damages for personal injury, was not entitled to an interim payment in the amount sought of 1.5m but was entitled to an interim payment of 900,000. Such interim payment would not fetter the discretion of the trial judge or inhibit his freedom of decision so as to create an unlevel playing field.
Heraeus Medical GmbH (a company incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany) and another v Biomet UK Healthcare Ltd and others
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division dismissed applications made by the defendant company to challenge the jurisdiction of the England and Welsh courts in a claim involving the alleged misuse of the claimants' confidential information regarding the manufacture of cement in orthopaedic operations. England and Wales was the appropriate forum in which to bring the case in the event that it was established that related proceedings in Germany did not cover UK acts.
Practice Stay of proceedings. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed applications by the defendant companies to strike out proceedings against them relating to alleged personal injury, environmental damage and loss of earnings caused by a Zambian mine owned and operated by the second defendant, which in turn was part of a group of companies in the first defendant holding company. The court held that, among other things, the English court had jurisdiction to try the claims against both of the defendants, and that there was no basis on which the proceedings should be stayed.
Costs Order for costs. The Queen's Bench Division held that, for the purposes of the qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS) regime, any appeal which concerned the outcome of a claim for damages for personal injuries or the procedure by which it was to be determined was part of the proceedings as defined in CPR44.13. Therefore, an order for costs against the claimant in favour of a defendant would only be enforceable to the extent permitted by the QOCS regime.
Personal injuries Action. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the dismissal of the claimants' claims for damages, in which they had alleged they had suffered whiplash injuries in a motor accident. The judge's finding that, had it been necessary so to have decided, the claim had been fraudulent would be set aside. However, the judge had not been faced with a binary choice between conspiracy or an accident as alleged. He had given his reasons for having regarded the evidence before him as unreliable and his reasons, with one exception, were cogent and compelling.
Motor insurance Motor Insurers' Bureau. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal concerning the construction and application of Parliament and Council Directive (EC)2000-26 and the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003, SI2003-37, in circumstances where an insurer had become insolvent. It held that the second defendant Motor Insurers' Bureau's submissions, which included the contention that the obligation of compensation bodies under art6 of the Directive ceased in the event of an intervening insolvency of the insurer, required reading into the Directive a substantial qualification which was nowhere expressed and which was unnecessary to enable the Directive to function in accordance with its purpose and terms.