Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against a costs order made following the trial of her medical negligence claim against the defendant. Among other things, it held that CPR Pt 36 did not preclude the making of an issue-based or proportionate costs order. However, a successful claimant was to be deprived of all or part of her costs only if the court considered that it would be unjust for her to be awarded all or that part of her costs and that decision fell to be made having regard to 'all the circumstances of the case'. 

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. 

Criminal procedure – Sheriff's charge – Theft – Mens rea. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of the theft of a substantial amount of stock from the company of which he was the managing director, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff had failed to give adequate directions on the mens rea of theft and had failed to direct the jury appropriately not to speculate. 

Criminal procedure – Warrant to take fingerprints – Suspension. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing to pass a bill of suspension in which the complainer sought suspension of a warrant the sheriff granted to police to take his fingerprints while summary proceedings were in progress, the court held that it was competent for it to hear the bill, as a bill to suspend a warrant of the kind granted in the instant case was not included in the transfer of powers to the Sheriff Appeal Court and such bills remained subject to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction; and the sheriff was entitled to regard the circumstances as special and to exercise his discretion in way that he did. 

Solicitor – Costs. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant solicitors claim for recovery of 50% of the final sum recovered on behalf of the defendants from the bank under a Contingency Fee Agreement on that basis that the agreement properly construed had not required that any offer of compensation by the bank needed to be obtained through the claimant's efforts, nor was such a term necessary to give the agreement business efficacy. 

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. 

Khan v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & others 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face prosecution for four thefts alleged to have been committed in 2007. In particular, it rejected the submission that he should have been discharged because the issue of his surrender was res judicata on account of his discharge in Scotland in extradition proceedings for substantially the same matters, as the principle of res judicata had no application in extradition proceedings. 

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.