29/11/23
TUI UK LTD v GRIFFITHS [2023] UKSC 48
An expert report was admitted in evidence at trial in support of a claim in circumstances where the defendant had not challenged the report in questions under CPR Part 35.6 or required the expert to attend for cross-examination. The report should not have been disregarded on the basis of submissions made at trial which the expert had not had an opportunity to answer.
29/11/23
WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL v LONDON GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS [2023] UKSC 47
The court has power to grant an interim or final injunction against newcomers who are persons unknown when the injunction is granted. The injunction binds anyone with notice of it even if the applicant had no cause of action against them when the injunction was granted. The court is likely to require the applicant to demonstrate a compelling need for the protection of civil or public law rights not adequately met by other remedies. Procedural protections include advertisement of the intended application, liberty to affected persons to apply to vary the order, and disclosure by the applicant of any matters which affected persons might wish to raise.
29/11/23
HUMPHREY v BENNETT [2023] EWCA Civ 1433
A judge had been wrong to give summary judgment on a derivative claim against directors for breaches of fiduciary duty. As the company had been run informally, the extent to which fellow directors were aware, or ought to have been aware, of the relevant facts and the extent to which the directors might be entitled to relief under s.1157 Companies Act 2006 were highly fact-sensitive and required fuller investigation at a trial.
22/11/23
THE DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS AND TRADE v THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER [2023] EWCA Civ 1378
On a proper interpretation, s.2(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act permits the public interest recognised in two or more different provisions in Part II to be assessed in combination or aggregated in determining whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption of the information from disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
15/11/23
CANADA SQUARE OPERATIONS LTD v POTTER [2023] UKSC 41
A lender’s failure to disclose in 2006 a commission in connection with a PPI policy had been unfair within the unfair relationship provisions of CCA 1974 ss.140A-D. A claim by the borrower in 2018 to recover policy payments was not time-barred. The commission had been deliberately concealed because the lender had consciously decided not to disclose its existence and amount. Once ss.140A-D came into force, those facts were relevant to the claimant’s right of action but the claimant had not discovered them and could not have done so with reasonable diligence until 2018. Concealment can be by taking positive steps or by withholding relevant information, but need not be in breach of a legal duty. It must be deliberate, in the sense that the defendant must have considered whether to inform the claimant of the relevant fact and decided not to. Actual knowledge or intention is required. Recklessness does not suffice.
10/11/23
LAST BUS LTD v DAWSONGROUP BUS AND COACH LTD [2023] EWCA Civ 1297
The court reviewed principles applicable to determine whether an exclusion clause in a standard form contract satisfies the test of reasonableness in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The judge below had been wrong to determine on a summary basis that the test was satisfied. Such a fact-sensitive issue would ordinarily require a trial.
6/11/23
ORJI v NAGRA [2023] EWCA Civ 1289
Reviews the principle in Henderson v Henderson (1843) limiting re-litigation of issues that have been, or should have been, raised in earlier proceedings [44], and principles of abuse of process in circumstances of dishonesty/deception, oppression and delay [60]. On the facts, the Henderson principle was not engaged because there had been no relevant prior determination, nor were the elements of abuse made out.
1/11/23
R v NORTHERN DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES’ COURT [2023] UKSC 38
Administrators appointed under Sch. B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are not officers of a company in the context of the 1986 Act nor for the purpose of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which make it an offence for an officer of a company to fail to notify the Secretary of State of proposed redundancies. In re Home Treat Ltd (1991), Re Powertrain (2015) and Schofield v Smith (2022) had been wrong to treat administrators as officers of a company.