Latest Cases

Feeds

*Auzins v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia

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. 

Lauder v HM Advocate

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. 

Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd v Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd and 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. 

Cod Hyde Ltd v Space Change Management Ltd

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. 

*R v MH

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. 

Mohidin v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & others

Mohidin v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & others 

S v J and others

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division granted certain declaratory relief in respect of the existence of constructive trusts following an application by the applicant pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882. The focus of the application was a dispute about the beneficial ownership of four central London properties which both parties owned, or in which either or both had had an interest during their former relationship and which had been used to guarantee two loans taken out by the parties. 

Jack Wills Ltd v House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division ruled that the claimant, Jack Wills Ltd, was entitled to recover 41% of the profits made by the defendant, House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd, from the sales of items in respect of which the defendant had been held liable for infringement of trade mark and passing off. 

Shaw v Kovak & others

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Clinical negligence. PSLA of £5,000. The claimant brought the claim on behalf of her late father after he suffered blood loss and death as result of a transaortic valve replacement procedure to remedy his aortic valve stenosis. The claimant alleged the deceased was never informed that the procedure was newly developed and still the subject of clinical trials, and that the defendants failed to care for him properly. 

Southwark London Borough v KA and others (Capacity to Marry)

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that following an assessment of the patient the presumption that the patient had the capacity to marry and engage in sexual relations as defined under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been displaced. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Tipping points

The age of criminal responsibility, extreme weather and conflict resolution – plus, new protocol for reporting bullying at the Bar

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases