Civil Case Law Update written by Fintan Molloy

High Court judgment clarifies liability in discrimination cases involving universities

Meagher v. University of Cambridge & Ors ([2025] EWHC 30 (KB))

In the case of Meagher v. University of Cambridge & Ors ([2025] EWHC 30 (KB)), the High Court delivered a significant judgment addressing the extent of liability under the Equality Act 2010 and associated claims for discrimination, victimisation, breach of contract, and tort.

Jacob Meagher, a PhD student at the University of Cambridge, alleged disability discrimination and victimisation after failing his viva voce examination. He claimed breaches of contract, duty of care, and the Equality Act, seeking damages for lost earnings and injunctive relief for adjustments to be made to the university’s processes.

The case also involved five university staff members as co-defendants, accused of personal liability under sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act. These provisions enable claims against both the institution and its employees for discriminatory acts done in the course of employment.

The Court upheld a lower court’s decision to strike out claims against the individual staff members. It reasoned that:

• The allegations against individuals mirrored those against the University, offering no substantive additional benefit to the claimant.
• Adding individual defendants unnecessarily increased the complexity and costs of litigation.
• Discrimination claims under the Equality Act could proceed against the University alone as the liable employer under section 109.

Citing the principle established in Jameel v. Dow Jones Co Inc ([2005] EWCA Civ 75), the Court found that pursuing claims against individual defendants would constitute an abuse of process. The effort and expense involved were disproportionate to any additional remedy or benefit for the claimant.

The Court struck out specific claims attempting to incorporate the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act into contractual and tortious obligations. It confirmed that the Equality Act provides a standalone statutory scheme with distinct remedies that cannot be conflated with contract or tort.

While reiterating the importance of addressing discrimination claims fully, the Court emphasised that these should be pursued in a manner that is proportionate and consistent with statutory frameworks.

This judgment reinforces the following principles:

• Universities, as employers, are primarily liable for discriminatory acts of their staff under the Equality Act, reducing the necessity of individual claims against employees.
• Proportionality remains a cornerstone of litigation strategy, particularly in discrimination cases.
• Statutory remedies for discrimination cannot be circumvented or supplemented by parallel claims in tort or contract unless distinct duties are clearly established.

The ruling provides clarity on balancing individual accountability with procedural efficiency, emphasising the need for careful pleading and proportionality in multi-party litigation.

High Court Rules on Adjournment in High-Value Professional Negligence Trial

Manchester Property Development Holdings & Anr v. Kuit Steinart Levy LLP ([2025] EWHC 35 (Comm)):

In Manchester Property Development Holdings & Anr v. Kuit Steinart Levy LLP ([2025] EWHC 35 (Comm)), the High Court addressed a late application for trial adjournment in a high-value professional negligence case. The decision sheds light on the balancing act that courts perform between procedural fairness and the need for the efficient resolution of disputes.

The claimants, Manchester Property Development Holdings and its owner Stephen Beech, brought a professional negligence claim against the Manchester-based solicitors, Kuit Steinart Levy LLP (“Kuits”). The claim alleged that Kuits negligently drafted and advised on a loan agreement with Roundshield Luxembourg SARL, which included an onerous minimum return fee. This agreement allegedly led to financial difficulties and the loss of a substantial property portfolio.

The claimants sought approximately £32 million in damages, alleging that proper legal advice could have prevented their financial loss. The trial, set to begin on 20 January 2025, was expected to feature eight witnesses and three experts on each side.

Kuits applied for an adjournment on 9 January 2025, citing the sudden illness of their leading counsel. The firm argued that instructing new leading counsel on such short notice would be impractical, given the case’s complexity and the proximity of the trial. The claimants opposed the adjournment, highlighting significant prejudice due to potential delays and increased costs.

The Court reiterated that a fair trial is paramount. While fairness to both parties must be considered, uncompensatable injustice to one party may justify granting an adjournment

The Court acknowledged the significant disruption a delay would cause to the claimants, including logistical challenges, financial strain, and the risk of losing litigation funding. However, it determined that the claimants’ funding difficulties were not insurmountable, and additional costs could likely be managed.

The Court emphasised that the defendant’s ability to mount a robust defence would be severely hampered without leading counsel, given the case’s complexity and the need for skilled cross-examination of witnesses.

Balancing all factors, the Court applied the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules to deal with the case justly and at proportionate cost.

The Court granted the adjournment, concluding that proceeding without the defendant’s leading counsel would result in an unfair trial. While acknowledging the financial and emotional toll on the claimants, the Court found that these did not outweigh the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The trial will now be rescheduled.

This ruling highlights the Court’s prioritisation of fairness in trial preparation over the efficiency of scheduling. In summary:

• Courts may adjourn trials even at a late stage to ensure fairness, particularly in complex, high-stakes litigation.
• Parties must be prepared for potential delays in litigation and ensure their funding arrangements can accommodate unforeseen developments.
• Effective case management is crucial, especially in cases involving expert evidence and substantial claims.

This decision serves as a reminder that “the course of litigation is rarely smooth” and practitioners need to anticipate and mitigate risks that may arise during trial preparation, especially in lengthy and intricate cases.

Government Actuary’s Department updates Ogden Tables

The Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) updated the Ogden Tables on 9 January 2025. This update included revised Additional Tables to the 8th edition, providing multipliers at selected rates of return, including +0.5%.

The Ogden Tables are prepared by an interdisciplinary working party of actuaries, lawyers, accountants, and insurers. They serve as an aid for calculating lump-sum compensation for financial losses or expenses resulting from personal injury or death.

For the most current version of the Ogden Tables please click here.