Negligence Vehicles. The Queen's Bench Division allowed a claim for damages for personal injury and consequential loss following a vehicular collision which, through the events that followed, had resulted in the claimant's leg being amputated. The defendant was liable for the entirety of the incident which had flowed directly from his negligent act in reversing into the claimant without having kept a proper look out. The damages would be reduced by 60% to reflect the claimant's contributory negligence in having left his car's ignition on and the car in neutral, when he had gone to stand behind the car to inspect the damage.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused an application for pre-action disclosure in regard to an alleged deduction of payments in a sub-contract between the parties for the painting of submarines. An arbitration clause had been incorporated into the parties agreement by the sub-contract and therefore that was the means of dispute resolution.
Patent Practice. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ruled on a number of applications made in respect of a claim concerning a patent for a snap-in insert which was used in display panels for shops. Among other things, it held that the English courts had jurisdiction over the dispute; granted the claimants' application for an order, under CPR 6.15(1) and (2) that good service was deemed to have been achieved by delivery to the defendants of a copy of an unsigned claim form; and dismissed a claim against one of the defendants where there were no arguable pleaded grounds on which the claimants could allege that that defendants had infringed the patent.
Practice Striking out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against the dismissal of its application for an order striking out the claimant's claim concerning his membership of a pension scheme or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing the claim, on the ground that the particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable ground for bringing the claim, and the claim had no real prospect of success. In the circumstances, it was inconceivable that the claimant would succeed at trial.
Claim form Service. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the refusal to validate service of a claim form under CPR6.15. There had been no error in law in the judge's approach in circumstances where there had not been a good reason not to have correctly effected service on the defendant within time.
Practice Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the district judge's allocation of his claim, within the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents, from CPR Pt8 to Pt7 in circumstances where the personal injury claim had been settled but damages for car hire charges remained at issue. The district judge had erred in that further evidence had not been necessary. Further, the case had not fallen within para7.2 of CPR PD8B and the district judge had had no power under that paragraph to re-allocate the claim.
Costs Security for costs. The Queen's Bench Division, on the defendant's application for security for costs for the entirety of the action brought by the claimant United Arab Emirates (UAE) national, held that there were no objectively justified grounds upon which to conclude that the defendant was unlikely to successfully obtain enforcement of a costs judgment against the claimant in the civil-commercial courts of the UAE. However, the defendant was likely to have to embark upon a legal process which could be lengthy and, thus, costly in order to attempt to obtain enforcement of a costs order, and it was in respect of that process that the court was minded to grant a security for costs order.
Damages Personal injury. The Queens' Bench Division, in a case where liability was admitted in respect of historic sexual abuse by a scout camp leader, heard evidence in respect of the amount of an award of damages for the claimant who had been one of the victims. The court allowed an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but rejected any award for past or future loss of earnings, for handicap on the open labour market or for therapy and no separate award by way of aggravated damages.
Partnership Existence of partnership disputed. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against a chief master's decision granting summary judgment to the defendants on the claimant's claim that a partnership had been created between the parties. The chief master had been entirely right to conclude that, on the evidence, no partnership had been created within the meaning of of the Partnership Act 1890. There was no evidence that the defendants had carried on business themselves and there was no realistic prospect of establishing that they had agreed to become partners for the purposes of the Act.
Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal against the grant of summary judgment to the claimant in the sum of almost US $4.1m, together with interest and expenses. In construing s6 of the 1992 (Multicurrency Cross Border) ISDA Master Agreement, it held that a debt obligation in respect of an early termination date arose, or accrued due on, or as at, the early termination date. The payment date was triggered, for the purposes of s 6(d)(ii) of the Master Agreement, by the 'effective' giving of notice of the amount payable.