Latest Cases

Criminal evidence – New and compelling evidence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that new DNA evidence, available at the time of the original police investigation, but not forensically examined until two years after the defendant's acquittal for murder, had been reliable, substantial and highly probative evidence. In the light of that new evidence, it had been in the interests of justice for the defendant's acquittal to be quashed and for a retrial, upon an indictment alleging the murder, to be ordered. 

Khan v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & others 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the claimant company, Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd, for summary judgment in a case concerning the alleged breach of the claimant's trade mark in the use of the name of its car by the defendants' Formula One team. Although the evidence came nowhere near suggesting that the claimant had consented to the defendants using the name, issues concerning art 9.1 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark would have to be determined at trial. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant's claim against a solicitors' firm and a conveyancing firm (HOC) that had acted for D. The claimant had purportedly purchased property from D which D had falsely represented as being his own. HOC had been in breach of contract and/or duty. Neither of the defendants had acted reasonably, and so they could not obtain relief under s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925. They had to bear equal responsibility. 

Customs and excise – Duties. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had allowed the taxpayer company's appeal against an alleged customs debt owed to the Revenue. The tribunal held that the FTT had erred by refusing to grant the Revenue's application for permission to amend its response to the taxpayer's appeal but, that in all other respects, the appeal would be dismissed. 

Company – Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal against findings that the appellants had dishonestly assisted A, the 100% owner and sole director of the respondent company, to breach his duties to that company under s 175 of the Companies Act 2006, and had dishonestly assisted A in misapplying £1.25m of the company's money. It dismissed the appeal, save that the judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable to compensate the company for a particular sum of £500,000, as part of the misapplication claim, would be reversed. 

Contract – Construction. The Chancery Division, Companies Court dismissed the employer's application for an injunction to restrain the contractor from presenting a winding up petition on the basis that the contractor had followed the procedure set out in the contract and there was no doubt concerning the liability of the employer to make the interim payments claimed in applications. 

Immigration – Leave to enter as child of refugee – Validity of application. Court of Session: Granting the prayer of a judicial review petition brought by the adopted daughters of a refugee, who applied for entry clearance to join him in the UK and whose application, presented as 'applications for family reunion in terms of para 352D of the Immigration Rules', was rejected without its merits being considered, an Entry Clearance Officer concluding it was not properly made under para 352D, the court held that the petitioner's application for leave to enter was 'made under' para 352D of the Immigration Rules and therefore it was fee exempt and it ought to have been considered on its merits. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Human trafficking – Mutual corroboration – Sentencing. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction and sentence by an appellant who was found guilty of eight offences of human trafficking, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff misdirected jury in relation to mutual corroboration in directing them that there was a legal sufficiency and that his use of the word 'rule' on twelve occasions, when describing mutual corroboration, amounted to a misdirection; furthermore it held that only a custodial sentence could have been regarded as appropriate and that the sheriff's selection of 3 years' imprisonment could not be described as excessive. 

Shipping – Contract. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that arbitrators had not erred in construing a shipbuilding contract to mean that a 12 month time-bar provision applied so as to exclude all claims not notified within the requisite notice period, including the claimant's claim. Bifurcation of an article in the contract so as to create two category of claims, as contended by the claimant, was wholly artificial. The court further held that s 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applied to a shipbuilding contract in any case where goods had been ordered for their normal purpose.