Permission to appeal application determinations from the UK Supreme Court

The full list of determinations is available on the UKSC website and JCPC website.

Given the number of cases, we have picked out three determinations in more detail below that may be of interest.

Davies (Respondent) v Bridgend County Borough Council (Appellant), UKSC 2023/0028

On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)

Japanese knotweed grew on the Appellant’s land. It encroached onto adjacent property at 10 Dinam Street in Nant-y-moel, Bridgend. In 2004, the Respondent bought the property. In 2012, a Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors report on knotweed was published, describing difficulties it can cause. The Appellant had actual notice of the presence of knotweed on its land, in relative proximity to the adjacent property, in 2014. It did not take steps to treat it until 2018. The Respondent first became aware that knotweed could pose a problem for any sale of their property in 2017. He sued the Appellant for damages in nuisance. The District Judge found that: (i) it was very probable encroachment had occurred in 2004, if not before; (ii) the Appellant had constructive knowledge of Japanese knotweed based on information available at the time in 2012/13; and (iii) the Appellant was in breach of its duty to the Respondent, thereby committing a private nuisance, from 2013 until 2018. The Respondent’s claim failed before the District Judge and Circuit Judge but succeeded on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The issue is:

Were the lower courts correct to decide that loss suffered by the Respondent, in the form of diminution in value of the Respondent’s property as a result of the encroachment of Japanese knotweed from the Appellant’s land, was caused by the Appellant’s breach of duty in failing to treat the knotweed, in circumstances where the encroachment first arose before the Appellant’s breach?

Permission to appeal be GRANTED.

--

Hassam and another (Appellants) v Rabot and another (Respondents), UKSC 2023/0025

On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division 

This appeal arises from two claims in the County Court in Birkenhead, both involving road traffic accidents as a result of which the claimants suffered whiplash and other injuries. The Civil Liability Act 2018 ("the 2018 Act") and the Regulations provide a framework and the corresponding level of compensation (or “tariffs”) payable for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (“PSLA”) caused by whiplash under certain conditions. The dispute arises as to the approach a court should take to compensation for PSLA where the claimant has suffered mixed injuries: i.e. injuries which are covered by the tariffs in the 2018  Act and Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 ("the Regulations"), but also injuries which are not (or “non-tariff injuries”). The extent to which, if at all, the usual principles of common law damages should be applied to the non-tariff injuries is a point of contention.

The County Court at Birkenhead held that, in these “mixed injury” cases, the proper approach is to: (a) determine what each injury is; (b) value each injury in accordance with the appropriate scheme/regime (which may include either the statutory scheme or the common law); (c) add them together and then step back, exercising the type of judicial discretion that judges have been doing over many years; and (d) reach a final figure by making an appropriate deduction (if any). The common law method of assessing damages in relation to the non-tariff injuries was not therefore excluded by the 2018 Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

The issue is:

How is the court to assess damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity PSLA where the claimant suffered a whiplash injury which comes within the scope of the 2018 Act and attracts a tariff award stipulated by the Regulations, but also suffers additional injury which falls within the scope of the 2018 Act and does not attract a tariff award?

Permission to appeal be GRANTED.

--

R (on the application of Philpot) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent), UKSC 2023/0030

On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division 

The Appellant (“PC Philpot”) is a serving police officer in the Metropolitan Police Service who was made subject to criminal and misconduct investigation in respect of alleged mistreatment of his wife (“Mrs Philpot”). The criminal investigation resulted in no further action. The misconduct investigation is ongoing. In the course of the misconduct investigation proceedings, PC Philpott’s commanding officer placed five restrictions on his conduct, both within and outside of his working hours. These restrictions resembled bail conditions in their form and purpose – to restrict PC Philpott’s conduct and protect witnesses (particularly his wife and children) until the misconduct proceedings were concluded. The third condition was for PC Philpot “To have no direct or indirect contact with Kim Philpot, unless it is required by the family court, or for child care matters which are to be via a third party.” This restriction is the subject of the current challenge.

The issue is:

To what extent and in what circumstances does a chief officer of a police service have power to impose restrictions on the private life of police officers in their ranks?

Permission to appeal should be REFUSED because the application does not raise an arguable point of law. 

--