Contract Repudiation. The Supreme Court, in allowing the owners' appeal, ruled on the assessment of damages arising out of the repudiation of a charterparty by charterers of a cruise ship (the vessel). Concerning the quantum of damages to be paid to the owners, the court held that the charterers were not entitled to a credit of 11,251,677 to reflect the difference in the value of the vessel in 2007, when the owners had sold it shortly after the charterers had redelivered it, and its diminished value in 2009, when it would have been redelivered if the contract had not been repudiated. The court held that the benefit to be brought into account had to have been caused either by the breach of the charterparty or by a successful act of mitigation, and that, in the present case, the difference or loss had not, on the face of it, been caused by the repudiation of the charterparty.
Costs Taxation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a limited liability partnership of solicitors, which acted as its own legal representative in litigation, was not a litigant in person and was not confined to the level of costs allowed to litigants in person. The claimant limited liability partnership of solicitors fell outside CPR 46.5(6)(a) because it was a corporation which was to be treated as having acted with a legal representative and it fell outside CPR 46.5(6)(b), which applied only to individuals.
Mailbox (Birmingham) Ltd v Galliford Try Building Ltd (formerly known as Galliford Try Construction Ltd)
Arbitration Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court made rulings following an adjudication between the parties in a construction dispute. The court held that the claimant was entitled to the sum awarded to it. The defendant was not entitled to an extension of time. It could only raise issues concerning a dispute about termination of its work, as that had not been raised in the arbitration.
Police Chief constable. The Divisional Court quashed decisions of the defendant Police and Crime Commissioner to suspend, pursue the statutory process against and require the claimant former Chief Constable to resign, following his statement on the Hillsborough disaster. The Commissioner's decisions had been irrational, as the Chief Constable's statement had been within the range of reasonable responses, and the Commissioner had failed to engage with HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary's observations and to provide cogent reasons for his different view.
Employment Contract of service. The Queen's Bench Division upheld a judge's injunction, applied for by the claimant, the former employer of the first defendant, who had been on garden leave and wished to commence working for the second defendant. The claimant had amply demonstrated its legitimate business interest in the protection of its confidential information, which required the protection provided by the garden leave injunction.
Confidential information Disclosure. The Chancery Division allowed an application by the claimant, Sir Cliff Richard, for an answer to a question concerning the sources of a journalist working for the first defendant BBC. The issue arose in the context of a raid carried out by the second defendant police force at the claimant's home, which had been extensively covered by the BBC, and which had resulted in no further investigation into the claimant. The court held that, balancing the appropriate factors, the interests of the claimant outweighed those of the journalist and his source.
Judgment Default judgment. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the defendant company's application to set aside judgment in default obtained against it in the course of a construction dispute.The application to set judgment aside had been inadequate on its face. Consequently, the defendant had not acted promptly.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed an appeal by the claimant waste management company against the strike-out of a claim made against the third defendant. The court held that the judge had been wrong to have given summary judgment in respect of all of the claims, but should have been confined to the damages claim for conspiracy.
Injunction Interim. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant company's application for, among other things, an interim injunction prohibiting the defendants from dealing with its named customers and suppliers and an unlimited injunction preventing the defendants from using or disclosing its confidential information. While, on the evidence, there was a serious issue to be tried, the case was largely built on inference and did not establish that the claimant was likely to establish sufficient misuse of its data to justify granting a 'springboard' injunction at trial.
Negligence Cause of action. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the claimant's appeal against the strike out of her case on the duty of care purportedly owed by the respondent NHS Trust in relation to disclosure of confidential patient information. The court found that none of the public policy reasons put forward could be said to be unarguable and the case would be remitted for hearing.