Arbitration Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held, in granting the claimant company's application for summary judgment, that the defendant company had no real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement of two adjudication decisions, where papers had been correctly submitted and where there was nothing to prevent a party from giving two notices of adjudication.
Costs Order for costs. In previous proceedings, the Patents County Court held that the defendant recording company had infringed the claimant's performer's rights by its release of a song which she had composed. The instant judgment concerning costs, it was held that the claimant was entitled to costs. However, the court held that it was not prepared to exercise its discretion to disapply the costs cap of 50,000.
Practice Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred by proceeding to determine the issues between the parties in the absence of an oral hearing in circumstances where the defence had sought to rely on the oral evidence of a witness whose evidence had been highly relevant.
Costs Security for costs. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against an order for security for costs made under CPR 25.13, held that it was satisfied that the order for security made by the judge and any order for security for a substantial claim would stifle the counterclaim. Accordingly, the order was set aside.
Jurisdiction Conflict of laws. Following litigation in Ethiopia, the claimants sought to bring proceedings against the defendants in England and Wales. All the parties were linked to Ethiopia. The Chancery Division considered, among other things, an application by the claimants to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. The court held that the claim would be stayed and the application to serve out of the jurisdiction dismissed, on the grounds that the claimants had failed to persuade the court that there was any cogent evidence that showed that the procedures in the Ethiopian courts had been wrong.
Solicitor Costs. The respondent senior radiographer brought a claim for personal injury against her employer, the appellant NHS trust, following the development of a repetitive strain injury incurred as a result of her work. The claim having been settled outside court, a costs judge held, amongst other things, that: (i) costs in the sum of 79,203.97, although large, had not been disproportionate in the circumstances of the case; (ii) the appropriate grade of fee earner had been grade A; and (iii) although the case had been a six figure claim and had merited a grade A fee earner, on balance, it had not warranted a grade A fee earner in central London. The appellant appealed and the respondent cross appealed. In allowing the cross appeal, the Queen's Bench Division ruled that the judge had been in error and that it had been reasonable for the respondent to have instructed a central London firm. Further, that the rates of that firm would apply.
Unincorporated association Requirements of unincorporated association. The case concerned four claims in a long-running dispute between two prominent members of the Cumbria community arising out of their membership of the Eden Owners' Association (the EOA), a voluntary or unincorporated association of those with fishing interests in the River Eden. The Queen's Bench Division, in resolving outstanding issues: (i) identified misconduct of EOA's former secretary and chairman; (ii) found the claimants were not entitled to their costs as damages; (iii) ordered the delivery up of documents by the EOA's former secretary; and (iv) made costs orders.
Costs Order for costs. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) held that the First-tier Tribunal, (Tax Chamber) (FTT) had been wrong to make a direction in the form of a costs order in the course of a case management hearing. The FTT had not had the power to make such a direction on the basis that its power to make costs orders was limited to r 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009) (the FTT rules), and did not extend to its case management powers in r 5 of those FTT rules.
Road traffic Motor vehicle. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's claim for damages for personal injury arising out of a road traffic accident, held that the accident had been the fault entirely of the claimant in stepping before the first defendant's van when he had had no chance of avoiding her.
Negligence Causation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the first and second claimants' appeals against findings of liability made against them following a road traffic accident in which the claimant had been injured, but, in allowing part of the first defendant's appeal, held that the judge had mischaracterised the contribution of the second defendant to the accident and therefore re-apportioned liability.