Latest Cases

Sentence – Aggravating features. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance as to the proper sentencing approach and practice for considering the aggravating feature of prevalence. In applying that test, it had not been satisfactory to have taken account of prevalence in respect of the defendant's four drug convictions. Accordingly, the defendant's total sentence of four years and ten month's detention in a Young Offenders Institution would be reduced to four years. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that where two actions — which had different subject-matters and bases and which were not connected by a link of subordination or incompatibility — were brought against several defendants, the fact that the upholding of one of those actions was potentially capable of affecting the extent of the right whose protection was sought by the other action did not suffice to give rise to a risk of irreconcilable judgments within the meaning of that provision. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated against the second respondent magistrates' court's acquittal of the first respondent of two offences of breaching an enforcement notice issued by the appellant local authority against the change of use of a property to two self-contained flats without planning permission. 

Post – Postal operator. The Administrative Court dismissed the judicial review proceedings commenced by the claimant international door-to-door courier of goods (DHL) against the information request served on it by the defendant Ofcom. DHL was a 'postal operator', within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2011, and the request was not a nullity or disproportionate. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant developer's appeal against orders upholding the defendant local planning authority's adoption of the 'Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies' and dismissing its claim for judicial review of the authority's adoption of its community infrastructure levy charging schedule. In respect of the former, it held that there had been no error of law in the inspector's conclusion that, with the proposed main modifications, the local plan part 2 had been sound. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division ruled, in respect of a proposed transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Halcrow pension scheme to a new occupational pension scheme, that reg 12(3) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991, SI 1991/167, should not be construed in a way which required the actuary to consider the security of the benefits in the transferring and receiving scheme when giving a certificate under that regulation. Further, it held that there was no scope for a different construction or analysis of reg 12(3) where the transferring scheme was in winding up from the situation where it was ongoing. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal and applications concerning the appropriate orders for costs following the respondent Secretary of State's withdrawal of her certification of human rights claims, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in EM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2014] 2 All ER 192). 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £2,785. The claimant suffered soft tissue injuries when his vehicle collided with the defendant's vehicle. The defendant was found liable. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that, taking into account the claimant's psychological state and loss of capacity, he was entitled to an award of damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity in the sum of £192,500 for the damage cause by the admitted negligence of a hospital. 

Patent – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, in dismissing Saertex France SAS' claim for infringement of a patent concerning a method of manufacture of fibre-based reinforcements, ruled that the patent was invalid, both as granted and as conditionally proposed to be amended, for lack of novelty and inventive step.