In the Supreme Court w/c 3 February 2014
03 Monday Feb 2014
In Courtroom 1 this morning are the linked appeals of Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) v Burgin (Nos. 1 & 2), listed until Wednesday 5th Feb 2014. The respondent in this matter was struck by a motorcycle ridden by the appellant and suffered a severe traumatic brain injury. She issued proceedings without the appointment of a litigation friend, and the parties agreed a settlement of £12,500 plus costs as a compromise on both liability and quantum. The judge was not asked to approve the settlement as neither party had questioned the respondent’s capacity to compromise her claim. Later, on the advice of a different legal team and with the assistance of a litigation friend, the respondent issued an application to set aside the consent order on the basis that she did not have capacity to settle her claim. The appellant accepts that the claim has a value in excess of £800,000 if liability is established on a full liability basis, and it is for the Supreme Court to determine whether to set aside the original consent order on the basis that the appellant lacked the capacity to decide whether or not to settle.
Listed for two days in Courtroom 2 from today is the matter of British Telecommunication Plc v Telefonica 02 UK Limited and Ors. The appellant provides connection services to mobile network operators such as the respondents, and the standard connection agreement contained terms allowing the appellant to vary termination charges. A new method of calculating termination charges was introduced, and the appellants disputed the reasonableness of the pricing structure and referred the matter to Ofcom under the Communications Act 2003, s 185. Ofcom’s determination was that the network charge change notices were not reasonable, and the present appeal concerns the circumstances in which Ofcom can exercise its power to control prices via dispute resolution where there has been no finding that competition in the relevant market is ineffective, and whether Ofcom can prohibit a communications provider from changing its pricing structure where there is no proof that the overall effect of the changes will be beneficial to consumers.
On Wednesday 5 February 2014 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the following: Adamson & Ors v Paddico Ltd; Taylor (on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Markham and Little Francis) v Betterment Properties Ltd; and Richardson & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions.
In the Privy Council on Wednesday is the appeal from the British Virgin Islands of Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd. This matter concerns the cut-off date for repayment after defaulting on a loan.
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:
Re an application by Central Craigavon Ltd for Judicial Review, heard 15 May 2013.
R v Ahmad & Anor, heard 29 July 2013.
P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council, and P & Anor (by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Surrey County Council, heard 21 – 23 October 2013.
Kennedy v The Charity Commission, heard 29 – 31 October 2013.
Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria, heard 4 – 5 November 2013.
EM (Eritrea) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 6 – 7 November 2013.
Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor, heard 12 – 14 November 2013.
Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield & Ors, heard 18 – 19 November 2013.
Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd, heard 20 November 2013.
Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer plc, heard 25 – 26 November 2013.
R (Eastenders Cash and Carry plc & Ors) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, heard 27 – 28 November 2013..
R (British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, heard 3 December 2013.
R v O’Brien, heard 5 December 2013.
R (T & Anor) v SSHD & Anor, heard 9 – 10 December 2013.
R (AM) v The Director of Public Prosecutions; R (AM) v Director of Public Prosecution; and R (Nicklinson & Anor) v Ministry of Justice, heard 16 – 19 December 2013.
Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014.
The Commissioners for HMRC v Forde and McHugh Ltd, heard 16 January 2014.
Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (formerly known as Victoria), heard 20 – 21 January 2014.
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland), heard 22 – 23 January 2014.
Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd & Anor, heard 28 January 2014.
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd (formerly Med Hotels Ltd), heard 29 -30 January 2014.