Gray v Botwright
Court of Appeal considers issues of causation and apportionment where negligence led to a "coincidence of location"
Clyde & Co for respondent
In the case of Whittle v Bennett [2006], the Court of Appeal referred to a "coincidence of location fallacy". In that case, A had sought to argue that, had B not been negligent earlier on (by failing to leave an appropriate stopping distance whilst driving), the accident in question would not have occurred as B would not have been at that particular spot in the road when the accident (which was not his fault) occurred. The Court of Appeal had dismissed an argument that there should be an apportionment of liability in such circumstances: many factors had contributed to the fact that B had been in the particular location when the accident had occurred (eg not having been stopped at traffic lights earlier on, as he might have been) and the issue of apportionment simply did not arise.
That argument was considered again by the Court of Appeal in this case. A had been involved in a collision when he failed to check for oncoming traffic. The Court of Appeal held him to be negligent but also concluded that B (with whom he had collided) should not have been where he was at the moment of impact (B having jumped a red traffic light) and hence contributory negligence was assessed at 50 per cent. This case was distinguished from Whittle v Bennett on the basis that the accident which actually occurred was the very thing which the red light had been intended to prevent. Furthermore, the onus was on B to be particularly careful when driving through the junction as he should not have been there at all at that time.
Starbev v Interbrew Central
Claiming pre-judgment interest
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2014/2863.html
One of the issues in this case was whether the successful party was entitled to pre-judgment interest, despite no claim for interest having been pleaded. Blair J held that, although it is usual practice to plead a claim for statutory interest, this is not a pre-condition to the court making an award of such interest. However, a contractual claim for interest (as was the case here) must always be pleaded: "Where a contract provides for the payment of interest, the agreed terms will normally displace the court's discretionary power to award interest under s. 35A Senior Courts Act 1981...This means that, where the contract itself fixes interest, the court can only enforce that provision: its statutory power does not override the contractual provision, so that it cannot fix a different interest rate".
However, Blair J went on to reject a "technical approach" to pleading contractual interest. So, for example, if the pleadings fail to specify the agreed rate of interest, that will not be important. However, here there was a dispute of substance (since interest had not been pleaded at all). Nevertheless, the judge gave the relevant party permission to amend its pleadings to include that claim for interest, since he concluded that there was a real prospect of success for the claim.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
