Latest Cases

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 – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division allowed in part the defendant News Group Newspapers' application to strike out parts of the particulars of claim of one of a number of defendants in phone-hacking proceedings, where two of the eight matters to which the application related could not demonstrate phone-hacking or other improper information-gathering. It allowed the claimants' application to amend generic particulars of claim and held that, among other things, the application to amend had not been made too late in the proceedings. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused the claimant solicitor's application for an injunction in order to restrain the release of the six closed files or alternatively their publication and he also sought a delivery up of all nine of the Solicitor Regulation Authority's files to him. The claim was further struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection having balanced the competing rights under arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights extended the reporting restrictions order beyond the death of the patient. Guidance was given on the general approach to be taken by the court in response to such applications. 

Libel and slander – Identity. The Queen's Bench Division, in determining preliminary issues in a libel claim, held that the second claimant company had only satisfied the objective test of reference to a limited and unimportant extent. However, that limited reference could not satisfy its case on defamatory meaning, as the publication complained of had not conveyed any imputation defamatory of it. 

Patent – Petition for revocation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against the judge's decision that its European patent for a dosage regimen for use of levonorgestrel as a method of emergency contraception was invalid for obviousness. It held that the defendant had sought to characterise the sort of information which a person skilled in the art would know he could look up as a 'species of or extension of … common general knowledge', but that was not correct. It would be taken into account for an obviousness assessment, not because it was in the notional head of the notional person, but because it would be obvious to such a person to look it up. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. In an appeal against the defendant's conviction of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to s 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that gang-related evidence adduced at trial as evidence to do with the facts of the case, pursuant to s 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, had not, in the circumstances of the case, warranted a bad character direction. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction had been safe. 

Elections – Electoral registration. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' challenge to the legality under European Union law of s 2 of the European Referendum Act 2015 (s 2), which disenfranchised from the EU referendum British citizens resident abroad last registered to vote in Parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom more than 15 years ago. While s 2 was capable of engaging EU law, it was not a restriction on the rights of free movement enjoyed by the claimants as EU citizens. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by L'Oréal, SA against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, relating to opposition proceedings between Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos and L'Oréal, concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA' as a European Union trade mark.