Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Sentence – Criminal damage. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of 32 months' imprisonment for a conviction of threatening to destroy or damage property, had been excessive, given the distinctions between the present case and the authority of R v Reader ([2014] EWCA Crim 2145). Accordingly, the sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of seven months' imprisonment. 

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. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Privy Council dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal concerning the respondent's dismissal from his employment with the appellant. It considered whether there had been constructive dismissal, whether the respondent's conduct had justified dismissal, and whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius had miscalculated the remuneration package. 

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. 

Discrimination – Nationality, on the grounds of. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the rejection of their judicial review challenge of the government's scheme to provide assistance to Afghan locally employed staff who had been employed during the military engagement in Afghanistan. The Divisional Court had been correct to find that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of discrimination on grounds of nationality under Pts 3 and 5 of the Equality Act 2010 and to have rejected the discrimination claim brought under the common law. The grant of declaratory relief rather than quashing the scheme had been an exercise of the court's discretion that could not be faulted. 

Commercial contract – Construction – Exclusion clause. Court of Session: In a dispute between the owner and the occupier of a multi-storey car park concerning liability for repairs, in which the owner argued that on the occupier's receipt of collateral warranties and the issue of a defects certificate it had no further liability, but the occupier objected that there had been no final inspection and it had not received the defects certificate, the court construed the agreement entered into before the construction of the car park as meaning that the parties had to comply with the contractual scheme: absent that condition being fulfilled there could be no valid defects certificate and no exclusion of the owner's liability.