Latest Cases

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union determined that provisions of European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40, which prohibited the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour, were valid and dismissed the applicant's claim for a declaration of invalidity. 

Building contract – Liability for loss or damage. The Technology and Construction court made preliminary rulings in a dispute concerning repair works to be carried out at a hotel and apartment complex which the parties had contracted to develop. The court ruled on, among other things, whether the contract between the parties including assumed liabilities included incomplete work and/or defects for which the defendant was liable. 

Family proceedings – Care order. The Family Division granted a care order in respect of a Lithuanian child living in the United Kingdom, having found that the best option was for the child to remain in long-term foster care with his current carers. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant local authority's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that advice given by a primary authority had been correct and confirming its direction stopping the authority from taking enforcement action with respect to the provision of sanitary appliances free of charge. The advice had not been correct and the error had been material. 

Town and country planning – Building of special architectural or historic interest. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a challenge by way of judicial review regarding the proposed Ordsall Chord elevated railway in Manchester. Neither the planning inspector in recommending the scheme, nor the Secretaries of State in having approved the scheme, had failed to act consistently with a decision maker's statutory duties relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and nor had the Secretaries of State misunderstood or misapplied relevant national policy and guidance. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by August Srotck KG against a decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concerning an application by that company for registration of a figurative sign as an European Union trade mark. 

Negligence – Liability. The Queen's Bench Division in a clinical negligence case in relation to an unsuccessful eye operation dismissed the claimant's case against the defendant NHS Trust on the basis of the defendant's case that the vitreous on the claimant's left eye remained attached and that was sufficient for the defendant's case to prevail on the issue of breach of duty. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimants' application to quash the decision of the inspector for the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal and granting planning permission for an on-shore office and warehouse building. The inspector had not had due regard to the public sector equality duty and there had been a breach of natural justice/procedural fairness by failing to consider another site. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Mayor of London's direction, under art 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, SI 2008/580, to the local planning authority that he be the local planning authority for the second interested party's planning and listed building consent applications. 

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Causing death by dangerous driving. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing a Crown appeal against the 4-year sentence of imprisonment, discounted from 6 years, which was imposed on a respondent who pled guilty to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the contention being that the sentence was unduly lenient, the court concluded that the judge's selection of a headline sentence of 6 years' imprisonment could not be said to fall outwith the range of disposals open to him, nor had he erred in selecting the level of discount which he did.