Results: 70

• MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd

  21 Jun 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 553; [2017] QB 604; [2016] 3 WLR 1519; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep 391; [2016] L & TR 27; [2016] WLR (D) 330; The Times, 22 July 2016, CA (Arden, Kitchin, McCombe LJJ)

  31 Jan 2017 (appn all) [2017] 1 WLR 1223, SC(E)

  16 May 2018 [2018] UKSC 24; [2019] AC 119; [2018] 2 WLR 1603; [2018] 4 All ER 21; [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 961; [2018] BLR 479; [2018] WLR (D) 301; The Times, 22 May 2018; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive. Subsequent citations: 60.
  CONTRACT — Formation — Consideration

  CONTRACT — Formation — Variation

  ESTOPPEL — Promissory estoppel — Effect of promise
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONTRACT — Formation — Consideration — Licence agreement — Parties agreeing to reschedule payments due under agreement — Defendant promising to pay and making payment in accordance with revised schedule — Whether good consideration — Whether licence agreement orally varied

  CONTRACT — Formation — Variation — Clause in licence agreement expressly precluding oral variation of agreement — Whether agreement capable of oral variation — Whether orally varied — Whether claimant’s acceptance of defendant’s promise possibly giving rise to collateral unilateral contract

  ESTOPPEL — Promissory estoppel — Effect of promise — Creditor agreeing to accept payment of debt by instalments — Debtor acting on agreement by paying one instalment — Creditor accepting instalment — Whether necessarily inequitable for creditor to go back on agreement and insist on payment of balance — Whether dependent on circumstance

  CONTRACT — Formation — Variation — Clause in licence agreement expressly precluding oral modification of agreement — Parties later orally agreeing to vary fee payment schedule set out in licence agreement — Whether variation valid — Whether clauses precluding oral modification legally effective

  9 Case(s) considered
• JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 14) (Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank)

  11 Feb 2016 [2016] EWHC 230 (Comm); [2017] QB 853; [2016] 3 WLR 659; [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 218; [2016] WLR (D) 72, QBD (Teare J)

  02 Feb 2017 [2017] EWCA Civ 40; [2017] QB 853; [2017] 2 WLR 1563; [2017] 2 All ER 918; [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2017] WLR (D) 71, CA

  08 Aug 2017 (appn all) [2017] 1 WLR 3788, SC(E) (Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption JJSC)

  18 Jan 2018 (appn dis) [2018] 1 WLR 1204, SC(E) (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  21 Mar 2018 [2018] UKSC 19; [2020] AC 727; [2018] 2 WLR 1125; [2018] 3 All ER 293; [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 479; [2018] WLR (D) 184; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 69.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction

  TORT — Cause of action — Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Domicile of other defendant — Defendant leaving United Kingdom in violation of obligation under freezing order — Whether defendant to be taken still to be domiciled in United Kingdom — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c 27), s 41A(2) (as inserted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/3131), reg 18(2)) — Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007, art 6

  TORT — Cause of action — Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means — Whether contempt of court amounting to unlawful means

  TORT — Cause of action — Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means — Whether contempt of court by breach of court order capable of amounting to unlawful means

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Claimant bringing action in tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means — Whether English court having jurisdiction — Whether harmful event occurring in England — Whether event giving rise to harm hatching or implementation of conspiracy — Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), art 5(3)

  13 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• R (Al-Saadoon) v Secretary of State for Defence (R (Rahmatullah) v Secretary of State for Defence)

  17 Mar 2015 [2015] EWHC 715 (Admin); [2017] QB 1015; [2015] 3 WLR 503; [2015] WLR (D) 168, QBD (Leggatt J)

  09 Sep 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 811; [2017] QB 1015; [2017] 2 WLR 219; [2017] 2 All ER 453; [2016] WLR (D) 491, CA (Leggatt J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 15.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Inhuman or degrading treatment — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Actions of British soldiers abroad

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Inhuman or degrading treatment — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach — Prohibition against torture — Iraqi civilians alleging breach of Convention rights by British soldiers in Iraq — Scope and content of state’s duty to investigate — Whether Convention against torture giving rise to domestically enforceable legal rights or affecting scope of investigative duty — Extent to which duty arising in respect of alleged mistreatment following handover of detainees to another state — Whether arising where no arguable substantive breach of Convention right — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 3 — Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1991) (Cm 1775), arts 2, 10, 11, 12, 13

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Actions of British soldiers abroad — Iraqi civilian claimants alleging breach of Convention rights by British soldiers in Iraq — Whether within United Kingdom’s “jurisdiction” — Whether extraterritorial jurisdiction exceptional — Scope of state agent authority and control over individuals — Whether United Kingdom exercising public powers over individuals — Whether exercise of physical power and control by agents of state — Whether claimants having Convention rights — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953) (Cmd 8969), art 1

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach — Iraqi civilians alleging breach of Convention rights by British soldiers in Iraq — Scope and content of state’s duty to investigate — Whether arising in all cases of detention — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  17 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  2 International Agreements considered
• Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 5)

  06 May 2015 [2015] EWHC 1258 (Comm); [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 766; [2015] CN 766, QBD (Flaux J)

  10 May 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 452; [2017] QB 67; [2016] 3 WLR 1117; [2017] 1 All ER (Comm) 807; [2017] 2 All ER 139; [2016] WLR (D) 252, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 3.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Claim — “Victim”

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Just satisfaction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Claim — “Victim” — Treasury making Order in Council prohibiting persons operating in UK financial sector from dealing with claimant Iranian bank — Claimant seeking damages against Treasury on human rights grounds — Claim including claim for loss of earnings of UK bank in which claimant majority shareholder — Whether UK bank “victim” and so able to bring human rights claim — Whether claimant thereby precluded from bringing human rights claim — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), ss 7, 8, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran — Effect of Order to shut bank out from United Kingdom financial sector — Bank claiming damages for loss caused by Order — Supreme Court remitting case to High Court and preliminary issues arising for determination — Whether bank free to pursue claim for diminution in value of its shareholding in subsidiary — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), ss 7, 8, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 (Si 2009/2725)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Just satisfaction — Treasury making Order in Council prohibiting persons operating in United Kingdom financial sector from dealing with claimant Iranian bank — Claimant seeking damages against Treasury as just satisfaction for breach of Convention rights including claim for loss of earnings of English bank in which claimant majority shareholder — Whether English bank “victim” and so able to bring just satisfaction claim in its own right — Whether claimant thereby precluded from bringing just satisfaction claim in respect of English bank’s losses — Human Rights Act 1998, ss 7, 8, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953) (Cmd 8969)

  10 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• Gulati v MGN Ltd (Taggart v MGN Ltd, Alcorn v MGN Ltd, Frost v MGN Ltd, Ashworth v MGN Ltd, Yentob v MGN Ltd, Roche v MGN Ltd, Gascoigne v MGN Ltd)

  21 May 2015 [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch); [2016] FSR 12; [2015] WLR (D) 232, Ch D (Mann J)

  24 Jun 2015 [2015] EWHC 1805 (Ch); [2015] CN 1085, Ch D (Mann J)

  20 Aug 2015 [2015] CN 1444, Ch D (Mann J)

  17 Dec 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 1291; [2017] QB 149; [2016] 2 WLR 1217; [2016] 3 All ER 799; [2015] WLR (D) 535, CA (Arden LJ, Rafferty LJ, Kitchin LJ)

  22 Mar 2016 (appn dis) [2016] 1 WLR 2559, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 47.
  TORT — Privacy — Measure of damages

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Offer of settlement

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Infringement of privacy rights

  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — Misuse of private information — Damages
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TORT — Privacy — Measure of damages — Damages claim for unlawful interception of mobile telephone voicemail messages — Proper approach to assessment of damages

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Offer of settlement — Whether costs to be award on indemnity because of unreasonable refusal to settle action

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Infringement of privacy rights — Common costs — Defendant applying to vary order on common costs — Whether application to be granted — CPR r 3.1(7)

  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — Misuse of private information — Damages — Newspapers intercepting claimants’ voicemail messages and misusing private information obtained — Proper approach to assessment of damages in tort of misuse of private information — Whether damages limited to distress or extending to compensation for invasion of privacy — Whether necessary for award to be comparable to personal injuries compensation — Whether necessary for award to be comparable to just satisfaction awards made by European Court of Human Rights — Guidance as to factors relevant to award of damages for misuse of private information — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953), art 41

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

  1 International Agreement considered

• R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) (Jeffrey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)

  04 Jul 2014 [2014] EWHC 2182 (Admin); [2015] QB 573; [2015] 2 WLR 309; [2014] WLR (D) 420, QBD (Lang J)

  11 Feb 2015 [2015] UKUT 56 (AAC), UT

  28 Apr 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 413; [2017] QB 657; [2016] 3 WLR 1641; [2016] WLR (D) 240, CA

  06 Dec 2016 (appn dis) [2017] 1 WLR 518, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 7.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Fair trial — Determination of civil rights and obligations

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Fair trial — Determination of civil rights and obligations — Statute enacted to validate retrospectively Regulations found to be invalid in ongoing judicial review proceedings — Whether impermissible interference in judicial determination of ongoing proceedings — Whether statute incompatible with claimants’ Convention rights to determination by court of civil rights and obligations — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6.1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, s 1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation — Jobseeker’s allowance withheld from claimant for failure to participate in back to work scheme — Claimant appealing successfully in reliance on Court of Appeal decision that relevant Regulations ultra vires — Secretary of State promoting and Parliament enacting validating legislation reversing Court of Appeal’s decision — Whether Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions engaged — Whether claimant deprived of “possession” — Whether validating legislation incompatible with claimant’s Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, s 1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Fair trial — Determination of civil rights and obligations — Statute enacted to validate retrospectively Regulations found to be invalid in ongoing judicial review proceedings — Whether impermissible interference in judicial determination of ongoing proceedings — Whether statute incompatible with claimants’ Convention rights to determination by court of civil rights and obligations — Whether statute capable of being read down so as to have no effect in existing proceedings — Jobseekers Act 1995 (c 18), s 17A (as inserted by Welfare Reform Act 2009 (c 24), s 1(2)) — Human Rights Act 1988 (c42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6.1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (c 17), s 1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/917)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation — Jobseeker’s allowance withheld from claimant for failure to participate in back to work scheme — Claimant appealing successfully in reliance on Court of Appeal decision that relevant Regulations ultra vires — Secretary of State promoting and Parliament enacting validating legislation reversing Court of Appeal’s decision — Whether Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions engaged — Whether claimant deprived of “possession” — Whether validating legislation incompatible with claimant’s Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Human Rights Act 1988, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, s1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  3 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Devani v Wells

  15 Nov 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 1106; [2017] QB 959; [2017] 2 WLR 1391; [2016] WLR (D) 604, CA (Arden, Lewison, McCombe LJJ)

  06 Nov 2017 (appn all) [2018] 1 WLR 23, SC(E) (Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  13 Feb 2019 [2019] UKSC 4; [2020] AC 129; [2019] 2 WLR 617; [2019] 3 All ER 379; [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 373; [2019] WLR (D) 104; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin JJSC, Lord Sumption)

  Subsequent citations: 17.
  AGENCY — Estate agent — Contract

  CONTRACT — Formation — Implied term
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  AGENCY — Estate agent — Contract — Information to client of prospective liabilities — Estate agent providing terms of business after offer to buy accepted — Parties failing to specify event giving rise to agent’s commission — Estate agent applying for enforcement of contract — Whether “prejudice” and “culpability” to be considered together — Whether just to dismiss claim — Whether commission to be reduced to compensate client for prejudice — Estate Agents Act 1979 (c 38), s 18(6)(a)(b)

  CONTRACT — Formation — Implied term — Parties agreeing orally that claimant introduce buyer for defendant’s properties — Parties not specifying event triggering claimant’s entitlement to commission — Whether parties’ bargain complete — Claimant introducing buyer — Claimant providing terms of business after defendant’s acceptance of offer to buy — Claimant seeking commission after completion — Whether legitimate to imply term as to event triggering entitlement to commission so as to convert incomplete bargain into legally binding contract

  CONTRACT — Formation — Implied term — Parties agreeing orally that estate agent introduce buyer for vendor’s properties — No express agreement as to event triggering agent’s entitlement to commission — Whether parties’ bargain complete — Whether agreement containing term providing for payment of commission on completion — Whether legitimate to imply such term so as to convert incomplete bargain into legally binding contract

  AGENCY — Estate agent — Contract — Estate agent breaching statutory obligation to inform client of prospective liabilities — Agent applying for enforcement of contract notwithstanding breach — Whether just to dismiss agent’s application — Whether commission to be reduced to compensate client for prejudice — Proper approach to agent’s “culpability” and “prejudice” to client — Estate Agents Act 1979 (c 38), s 18(6)

  8 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

• Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos

  22 Jun 2016 [2016] EWHC 1442 (QB); [2016] EWHC 1695 (QB); [2017] QB 453; [2017] 2 WLR 67; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep 177; [2016] WLR (D) 332, QBD (Picken J)

  12 Jan 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 1; [2018] QB 886; [2018] 2 WLR 1330; [2018] WLR(D) 18, CA (McCombe, Flaux, Holroyde LJJ)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign judgment — Recognition

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Provisional and protective measures
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign judgment — Recognition — Claimant obtaining worldwide freezing order against defendants in proceedings before Cypriot court — Freezing order registered as judgment of High Court pursuant to European Union Regulation — Claimant notifying third party bank of existence of freezing order and registration as English order seeking compliance in relation to assets of defendants — Defendants appealing against registration order within applicable time limits — Whether freezing order becoming immediately effective and enforceable on registration — Whether enforceability subject to appeal process — Whether prohibition on taking “measures of enforcement” pending appeal relating only to enforcement action before court — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, arts 43(5), 47

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Provisional and protective measures — Claimant obtaining worldwide freezing order against defendants in proceedings before Cypriot court — Defendants lodging appeal against order registering Cypriot order as a judgment of the High Court — Claimant seeking protective measures pursuant to European Union Regulation in form of domestic freezing order — Whether claimant having automatic right to relief sought — Whether application to be determined according to domestic law principles regarding grant of freezing order — Whether freezing order to be granted — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, art 47(2)(3)

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign judgment — Recognition — Claimant obtaining worldwide freezing order against defendants in proceedings before Cypriot court — Freezing order registered as judgment of High Court pursuant to European Union Regulation — Claimant notifying third party bank of freezing order and seeking compliance in relation to assets of defendants — Defendants appealing against registration order within applicable time limits — Whether freezing order becoming immediately effective and enforceable on registration — Whether enforceability subject to appeal process — Whether prohibition on taking “measures of enforcement” pending appeal relating only to enforcement action in which court involved — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, arts 38.2, 47.3 — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 (SI 2001/3929), Sch 1, para 2 — CPR rr 74.6, 74.9

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign judgment — Recognition — Claimant obtaining worldwide freezing order against defendants in proceedings before Cypriot court — Freezing order registered as judgment of High Court pursuant to European Union Regulation — Claimant notifying third party bank of freezing and registration orders — Defendants appealing against registration order — Whether freezing order immediately effective and enforceable on registration — Whether notification to bank breach of prohibition on taking “measures of enforcement” pending appeal against registration order — CPR rr 74.6, 74.9 — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 (SI 2001/3929), Sch 1, para 2 — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, arts 38(2), 43(5), 47

  2 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered

• R (Drax Power Ltd) v HM Treasury

  10 Feb 2016 [2016] EWHC 228 (Admin); [2016] 2 CMLR 33, QBD

  21 Oct 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 1030; [2017] QB 1221; [2017] 2 WLR 194; [2017] STC 414; [2016] WLR (D) 549, CA (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lloyd Jones, Sales LJJ)

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  REVENUE — Climate change levy — Removal of exemption
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  REVENUE — Climate change levy — Removal of exemption — Generators of electricity supplied to business from renewable energy sources having statutory exemption or reduction of tax from climate change levy — Budget statement announcing that exemption to be removed 24 days later — Whether breach of European Union law principles of foreseeability, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Whether breach of principle of proportionality — Finance Act 2000 (c 17), Sch 6, para 19 — Finance (No 2) Act 2015 (c 33), s 49

  8 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• UK Insurance Ltd v Holden (UK Insurance Ltd v R & S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering), R & S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd)

  19 Feb 2016 [2016] EWHC 264 (QB); [2016] 4 WLR 38; [2016] 3 All ER 727; [2016] RTR 13; [2016] WLR (D) 93, QBD (Judge Waksman QC)

  12 Apr 2017 [2017] EWCA Civ 259; [2017] QB 1357; [2017] 3 WLR 450; [2017] 4 All ER 199; [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 905; [2017] RTR 25; [2017] Lloyd's Rep IR 463; [2017] WLR (D) 286, CA (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Beatson, Henderson LJJ)

  06 Nov 2017 (appn all) [2018] 1 WLR 51, SC(E) (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Hughes, Lord Briggs JJSC)

  27 Mar 2019 [2019] UKSC 16; [2020] AC 1025; [2019] 2 WLR 1015; [2019] 3 All ER 917; [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 793; [2019] RTR 28; [2019] WLR (D) 199; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 4.
  ROAD TRAFFIC — Third party insurance — Insurer's liability

  ROAD TRAFFIC — Third party insurance — Insurer’s liability
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ROAD TRAFFIC — Third party insurance — Insurer's liability — Statute requiring liability insurance in respect of use of vehicle on road or other public place — Defendant’s car insurance policy complying with requirement — Car catching fire during course of repair undertaken by defendant in private premises — Fire damaging premises owned by third parties — Whether policy limited to use on roads — Whether repair to car amounting to “use” — Whether policy covering damage to premises — Road Traffic Act 1988 (c 52), s 145(3)

  ROAD TRAFFIC — Third party insurance — Insurer’s liability — Statute requiring liability insurance in respect of use of vehicle on road or other public place — Motor insurance policy complying with requirement — Motorist’s car catching fire during course of repair undertaken by motorist in private premises — Fire damaging those premises and adjoining property owned by third parties — Whether policy limited to use on roads — Whether policy covering damage to premises — Whether repair to car amounting to “use” — Whether motorist’s liability to owners of premises and adjoining property covered by policy — Road Traffic Act 1988 (c 52), s 145(3) (as amended by Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/726), reg 2(3)) — Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103/EC, arts 3, 12(3)

  ROAD TRAFFIC — Third party insurance — Insurer’s liability — Motorist’s car catching fire during course of repair undertaken by motorist in private premises — Fire damaging those premises and adjoining premises owned by third parties — Statute requiring third party liability insurance in respect of use of vehicle on road or other public place — Whether policy limited to use on roads or other public places — Whether policy covering damage to premises — Whether repair to car amounting to “use” — Whether motorist’s liability to owners of premises and adjoining property covered by policy — Road Traffic Act 1988 (c 52), s 145(3) (as amended by Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/726), reg 2(3)) — Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103/EC, art 3

  11 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statute considered