Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a finding by the employment tribunal (the tribunal) that the employee had not suffered direct discrimination and harassment because of/related to her religion or belief. The tribunal had concluded that the employee had not been subjected to disciplinary process or sanction because she had manifested her religious belief in voluntary and consensual exchanges with a colleague, but because she had subjected a subordinate to unwanted and unwelcome conduct. The treatment of which the employee had complained was because of, and related to, those inappropriate actions; not any legitimate manifestation of her belief. The tribunal had approached its task correctly and the appeal could not stand given the tribunal's factual findings. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division, in allowing a claim by the claimant company, American Science and Engineering inc, held that the defendant company had infringed the claimant's patent, entitled 'X-ray backscatter mobile inspection van'. The invention was not obvious in the light of prior art, and hence infringement had occurred. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision that the defendant was entitled to recover spread costs for a period of delay caused by the claimant's breach of contract. The language of the exclusion clause in the contract in LOGIC form was clear and was apt to exclude liability for wasted costs in the form of the spread costs which the defendant sought to recover. 

Counsel – Duty. The Administrative Court upheld the defendant Legal Ombudsman's determination, criticising the claimant barrister's handling of the interested party's formal complaint letter in his own letter. However, it quashed the remainder of the determination, including the decision to award the interested party the equivalent of her costs in the claimant's county court action against her for unpaid fees. 

Sentence – Variation of sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, pursuant to s 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the sentencing judge had erred in concluding that, on review, the discount of one-third, which had been given for the defendant's guilty pleas for three counts of rape and one count of aiding and abetting rape, would be reduced to 25%. Accordingly, the sentences of 18 years' imprisonment for those offences would be quashed and reimposed with terms of 16 years' imprisonment. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that owing to the father's reported behaviour it was in the three boys' best interests not to have any face to face contact with him until he made changes to his behaviour. Face to face contact included Face Time and Skype. Contact was to be limited to telephone contact for one hour and further an order was made under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 regarding further applications by the father. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division held that, in the course of proceedings concerning three Sikh temples, the correct interpretation of an order made by the Supreme Court was that the claimants were entitled to immediate detailed assessment of all of the relevant costs. The master had dismissed the application of the first to fourth defendants for an order setting aside a notice of commencement of detailed assessment which had been served by the claimants. He had been amply entitled to exercise his discretion as he had done, and there were no grounds on which the court could or ought to interfere.