Latest Cases

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's acceptance of the judge's determination that his tariff should not be reduced. Although a victim personal statement should not have been considered by the judge if its author had been unwilling to have it disclosed to the claimant, the judge's decision had been inevitable. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The county court dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for physical and emotional abuse caused by a licensee on parole after a murder conviction. The Secretary of State had not owed the claimant a duty of care to investigate the initial allegations that she had been in a relationship with the licensee in a different, more thorough, manner, nor had he owed a duty to warn the claimant of the licensee's background. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Laboratorios Ern, SA against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, relating to opposition proceedings concerning the application by the intervener, Matthias Werner, for registration of a figurative sign 'Dynamic Life' as a European Union trade mark. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 was to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that provision, a natural person could not have at the same time a normal place of residence in both a member state and in a third country. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division, on the claimant's application for an order, under s 51(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that RG, who had been joined as a party to the present proceedings for the purposes of costs only, pay the costs of its claim against the first defendant, held that the present was an exceptional case and it was just to make an order for costs against RG. RG was ordered to pay the claimant's costs incurred from the date on which the first defendant had filed its acknowledgement of service. 

Animal – Protection. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the RSPCA's appeal, held that, in order for an offence of animal fighting to be committed, contrary to s 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as defined by s 8(7) of that Act, the other animal, with which a protected animal was placed, had to be the subject of some control or restraint by some person or persons connected with that activity or some other artificial constraint so that its ability to escape was prevented. 

Contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court determined two preliminary issues in the course of proceedings concerning a claim for damages for delay in sub-contract works on the Rolls Building. It ruled that: (i) on the assumption that EMCOR was entitled to an extension of time, pursuant to the sub-contract, as amended, the sub-contract required that such revised or further revised period or periods were added contiguously to the end of the current period within which the sub-contract works should be completed; and (ii) the claimant's liability to the Rolls for liquidated and ascertained damages for the relevant period had not been not extinguished by a further supplemental agreement. 

Charity – Registration. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appellant's appeal against the finding of a judge that the appellant lacked standing to appeal against a decision by the respondent Charity Commission not to remove certain charities from the Register of Charities. The court held that, among other things, the appellant could not be considered to be a person affected by the decision for the purposes of the Charities Act 2011. 

Employment – Contract of service. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was constructively dismissed, by reason of a repudiatory breach of contract by his employer Leeds United Football Club and therefore was entitled to damages for that breach less the amount of any bonuses to be received in respect of his current job. 

Practice – Disclosure. The Commercial Court, ruled, among other things that an unless order was the only way to render effective an earlier order for disclosure by the claimants in circumstances where there had been a previous failure to comply. The order was made in the course of proceedings alleging the breach of an oral agreement concerning the sale of assets.