Dockets

Sources in this library

Latest documents

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2024/0084

    Issues: Facts:

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0115

    Issues: Was the Court of Appeal wrong in its interpretation of section 70(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (the "Act") because (i) it found that there does not need to be a "settlement of account" in order for there to be a "payment" under section 70(4) of the Act; and (ii) it did not take into account the regulatory framework and protection of consumers in construing section 70(4) of the Act? Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the Respondent had complied with Rule 4.3 of the Solicitors' Account Rules? Facts: The Appellant, Mr Menzies, suffered serious injuries as a result of a road traffic accident that took place in November 2015. Mr Menzies instructed the Respondent, Oakwood Solicitors, to act for him in a claim for damages. Oakwood Solicitors were instructed under a conditional fee arrangement, meaning that they would only be paid if Mr Menzies' claim was successful. Mr Menzies' claim for damages was settled in March 2019 for £275,000. Oakwood Solicitors received the balance of Mr Menzies' damages totalling £210,004.85. Oakwood Solicitors provided an interim bill in April 2019, noting that negotiations with the defendants for recovery of costs from them were still ongoing. Oakwood Solicitors said they would retain 25% of Mr Menzies' damages on account until negotiations with the defendants were completed. After negotiations concluded, Oakwood Solicitors provided Mr Menzies with a final bill on 11 July 2019, stating that their total fees were £73,711.20, of which they had recovered £38,000 from the defendants. This resulted in a shortfall of £35,711.20. Oakwood Solicitors deducted this shortfall from the amount they had retained on account and then paid out of the remainder of the amount they had retained, £22,629.09, to Mr Menzies. On 1 April 2021, Mr Menzies brought proceedings to request an assessment of the final bill. The Costs Judge found that as the claim had been brought more than 12 months after payment of the bill, it was barred under section 70(4) of the Act, but he granted permission to appeal to the High Court. The High Court allowed Mr Menzies' claim for an assessment, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the High Court. Mr Menzies now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0062

    Issues:Whether the current test for an account of profits (where an individual has to pay back money earned due to a breach of a duty) should be changed?Facts:The appellants were directors of a company and as a result owed special duties to the company. In breach of those duties, the appellants took a business opportunity away from the company. The appellants were ordered to repay to the company the profits that it made from this business opportunity. The appellants dispute the need to repay their profits to the company, and how the profits to be repaid should be calculated.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0075

    Issues: Can the Public and Commercial Services Union ("PCS") enforce a contractual term offering the facility for "check-off arrangements", whereby employees' trade union subscriptions are deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS? Facts: These are three appeals involving persons employed by the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") or the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"). The employees are members of the appellant trade union, PCS. They paid their trade union subscriptions by means of "check-off arrangements" whereby the subscriptions were deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC withdrew these check-off arrangements at various dates in 2014 and 2015. The employees brought claims against their employers. PCS was also a claimant. In each of the three cases, the High Court held that: the check-off arrangements were a term of the employees' contracts of employment; the employees had not accepted any variation of their contracts by continuing to work after the check-off arrangements were withdrawn and had not waived any prior breaches of their contractual rights; and PCS was entitled to enforce the term by reason of section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues (ii) and (iii), where all three cases were considered together. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the employees had not accepted the variation of their contracts by continuing to work. However, by a majority, it held that section 1 of the 1999 Act did not give PCS the right to enforce the term offering the facility for the check-off arrangements. PCS now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0076

    Issues: Can the Public and Commercial Services Union ("PCS") enforce a contractual term offering the facility for "check-off arrangements", whereby employees' trade union subscriptions are deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS? Facts: These are three appeals involving persons employed by the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") or the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"). The employees are members of the appellant trade union, PCS. They paid their trade union subscriptions by means of "check-off arrangements" whereby the subscriptions were deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC withdrew these check-off arrangements at various dates in 2014 and 2015. The employees brought claims against their employers. PCS was also a claimant. In each of the three cases, the High Court held that: the check-off arrangements were a term of the employees' contracts of employment; the employees had not accepted any variation of their contracts by continuing to work after the check-off arrangements were withdrawn and had not waived any prior breaches of their contractual rights; and PCS was entitled to enforce the term by reason of section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues (ii) and (iii), where all three cases were considered together. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the employees had not accepted the variation of their contracts by continuing to work. However, by a majority, it held that section 1 of the 1999 Act did not give PCS the right to enforce the term offering the facility for the check-off arrangements. PCS now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0085

    Issues:Whether the one-year time limit in Article III, rule 6 of the Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for mis-delivery of cargo after discharge of the cargo from the vessel.Facts: The appellant (FIMBank plc) was the holder of 13 bills of lading dated either 4th or 14th March 2018 covering a cargo of approximately 85,510 metric tons of steam coal which was shipped in bulk on board the vessel "GIANT ACE" in Indonesia and discharged in India between 1st and 18th April 2018. The respondent (KCH Shipping Co Ltd) was the demise charterer of the vessel and the contractual carrier under the bills of lading. The bills of lading incorporated the terms of a charterparty which stated that the Hague-Visby Rules shall apply to any bill of lading issued under the charterparty. The appellant claims damages from the respondent for mis-delivery of the cargo to persons who are not entitled to receive it. The alleged mis-delivery occurred after discharge of the cargo from the vessel at the destination port, Jaigarh port on the west coast of India. The appellant argues that the Hague Visby Rules apply only to carriage by sea, which ends on discharge of the cargo from the vessel and the Hague Visby Rules therefore cease to apply thereafter. As such the appellant says that its claim for mis-delivery after discharge falls within the six-year time limit set down in the Limitation Act 1980. The respondent argues that the Hague Visby Rules as a whole apply to all obligations undertaken by the carrier under the bill of lading contract up to and including delivery and, in any event, Article III, rule 6 specifically applies up to and including delivery, irrespective of whether delivery occurs prior to or after discharge of the cargo from the vessel. The appellant was unsuccessful both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0121

    Issues:Is it lawful for a local authority's constitution to restrict voting by members on a deferred application for planning permission to those who had been present at the meeting(s) at which the application had previously been considered? Facts:Old Truman Brewery Ltd., the second respondent, applied for planning permission to redevelop an old brewery in Spitalfields. The application came before the Development Committee of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council (the "Council") at a meeting on 27 April 2021. Five members of the committee were present. The committee voted unanimously to defer consideration of the proposal. The committee next considered the planning application at its meeting on 14 September 2021. By that point, the composition of the committee had changed since the 27 April 2021 meeting. The Council's standing orders provided that where a planning application is deferred and its consideration recommences at a subsequent meeting, only Members present at the previous meeting will be able to vote on the application. In accordance with that rule, it was announced at the beginning of the 14 September 2021 meeting that only councillors who were present at the meeting on 27 April 2021 could vote on the planning application. The committee resolved to grant planning permission by a vote of two to one. The appellant, The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust, applied for judicial review of the decision on the ground that it had been unlawful to exclude committee members from voting at the September meeting if they had not been present at the April meeting. The High Court refused the application. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0077

    Issues: Can the Public and Commercial Services Union ("PCS") enforce a contractual term offering the facility for "check-off arrangements", whereby employees' trade union subscriptions are deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS, pursuant to section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999? Facts: These are three appeals involving persons employed by the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") or the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"). The employees are members of the appellant trade union, PCS. They paid their trade union subscriptions by means of "check-off arrangements" whereby the subscriptions were deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC withdrew these check-off arrangements at various dates in 2014 and 2015. The employees brought claims against their employers. PCS was also a claimant. In each of the three cases, the High Court held that: the check-off arrangements were a term of the employees' contracts of employment; the employees had not accepted any variation of their contracts by continuing to work after the check-off arrangements were withdrawn and had not waived any prior breaches of their contractual rights; and PCS was entitled to enforce the term by reason of section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues (ii) and (iii), where all three cases were considered together. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the employees had not accepted the variation of their contracts by continuing to work. However, by a majority, it held that section 1 of the 1999 Act did not give PCS the right to enforce the term offering the facility for the check-off arrangements. PCS now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0063

    Issues: Whether, under a contract of property insurance, the assured can have an insurable interest in property forming part of a bulk where the bulk itself is unidentified. Facts: Quadra purchased cargoes of grain (the Cargoes) from (i) Agri Finance SA and (ii) Linepuzzle Ltd and stored them in three grain elevators in Ukraine. Agri Finance, Linepuzzle and the operators/owners of the elevators were all owned by companies in the Agroinvestgroup. The delivery and storage of each of the Cargoes in the elevators was evidenced by warehouse receipts issued to Quadra. The Cargoes were stored at the elevators mixed with other grain (rather than on a segregated basis). In January 2019, it transpired that the Agroinvestgroup companies were operating a large-scale fraud issuing multiple warehouse receipts to different traders for the same grain. As a result, the warehouse receipts stating that the elevators held grain on behalf of a person (such as Quadra) did not correspond to any grain (either because that grain did not exist or because another party held title to that grain). The effect was that multiple parties holding fraudulent warehouse receipts ended up laying claim to the same grain. Quadra made a claim under its marine insurance policy. It claimed an indemnity in respect of the Cargoes. XL Insurance argued that there was no property in which Quadra could show an insurable interest. The High Court found that Quadra could claim under its policy. XL Insurance appealed but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court. XL Insurance now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0059

    Issues: In the circumstances, did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the police did not owe road users a duty of care to protect them from harm, either on the basis that their presence at the scene made the situation worse or that they assumed a responsibility to protect road users? Facts: The following facts are assumed for the purpose of the appeal. On 4 March 2014, Mr Kendall's car skidded on a patch of black ice on the A413 road, causing him to lose control and roll over into a ditch. Concerned by the state of the road, after making an emergency call, he stood by the road signalling cars to slow down. Around 20 minutes later, police officers attended the scene. They started clearing up debris from the accident and put up a "Police Slow" sign up. After warning the police about the dangerous state of the road, Mr Kendall left to visit the hospital to tend for non-life-threatening injuries he had suffered. It is alleged that, but for the arrival of the police, Mr Kendell would have continued attempts to alert road users of the danger. Having cleared the debris, and after Mr Kendall had gone to hospital, the police officers removed the "Police Slow" sign and left the scene, with the road in the same condition as it had been previously. They did so in the belief that there was no hazard and having failed to discover or inspect the sheet ice. About an hour after the first accident, at 5.45am Mr Malcom Tindall was killed in a second accident when his car was hit by an oncoming vehicle which had skidded on the ice (the driver, Mr Bird, was also killed). The Appellant, widow and administratix of the estate of Mr Tindall, brought a claim against the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, the Respondent, alleging the police's conduct at the scene of the accident was negligent and that the Chief Constable is vicariously liable. The Chief Constable applied to strike out the Appellant's claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The application failed at first instance but succeeded on appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT