March 2017
30/3/17
ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS v RUSHTON [2017] EWHC (QB)
An injunction was granted to restrain harassment, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The requirements of the tort of harassment were summarised [30].
22/3/17
BPE SOLICITORS v HUGHES-HOLLAND [2017] UKSC 21
A facility letter drafted by a solicitor incorrectly indicated that a loan would be used to develop land rather than to buy it. Had the lender known the truth, he would not have made the loan. But the solicitor was not liable for the lender’s loss in making the loan. The solicitor had not been instructed to advise the lender whether to enter into the loan, only to provide information relevant to the lender’s decision. The case was therefore an ‘information’ not an ‘advice’ case within the SAAMCO categorisation, and the solicitor’s liability was for the difference between the loss actually suffered and the loss which would have been suffered if the information about the loan had been right and the loan had been used to develop the property. On the facts the same loss would have been suffered because the expenditure would not have enhanced the value of the property. The loss actually suffered was therefore outside the scope of the solicitor’s duty.
3/3/17
ITTIHADIEH v 5-11 CHEYNE GARDENS RTM CO LTD [2017] EWCA Civ 121; [2018] QB 256 (CA)
Considers the Data Protection Act 1998 including the meaning of “personal data” [61]-[69], who is a “data controller” [70]-[71], the form of a DSAR [78]-[81], the purpose of a DSAR [82]-[90], the form of a DSAR response [91-94], proportionality of search [95]-[103] (confirming that what is required is a “reasonable and proportionate search”), and the exercise of the court’s discretion [104] – [110] (confirming that relevant factors in the exercise of discretion include the absence of legitimate reason for a DSAR, the fact that the real quest is for documents, and the fact that the data is of no real value to the data subject).
2/3/17
THOMAS v TRIODOS BANK NV [2017] EWHC 314 (QB)
When the claimants switched their business borrowing from a variable to a fixed rate they asked if the early redemption penalty would be between £10,000 and £20,000. Their manager had said nothing to refute this figure. When they later fixed another variable rate they were told £10,000 to £20,000 could not be right because the redemption figure would vary. No further explanation had been given. The actual redemption figure in 2009 was over £96k. The bank was held to have breached an ‘information duty’ by failing to provide proper information in answer to a customer enquiry. It was reasonable for a customer dealing with a bank which subscribed to the Business Banking Code to expect the bank to adhere to the principles in the code which included a promise that if the bank was asked about a product it would give the customer a balanced view in plain English with an explanation of its financial implications. This required an explanation in plain English of what fixing the rate entailed including the financial consequences of terminating before the end of the fixed rate period.