Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Compensation – Crime. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeals against the dismissal of their claims for judicial review, seeking a declaration of incompatibility between s 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and art 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (art 6(2)). The Divisional Court had been right to have held that the ratio of the decision in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice ([2011] 3 All ER 261) (Adams) on the art 6(2) issue was that art 6(2) was not applicable to the operation of s 133 of the Act, whatever definition of 'miscarriage of justice' was adopted. Adams was binding precedent on that point and that remained the position regardless of any subsequent observations of the European Court of Human Rights in Allen v United Kingdom ((2013) 36 BHRC 1) and later cases. 

Criminal law – Robbery. On a reference by the Attorney General, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of four years' imprisonment for the robbery of a man in his home, had been unduly lenient. In the circumstances, the offender's sentence would be quashed and, in its place, a term of nine years' imprisonment would be imposed. 

Environment – Protection-Broads. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Broads Authority's decision that the brand 'Broads National Park' should be adopted for marketing-related purposes, although it was not a statutorily designated National Park. The Authority's decision had not been unlawful as outside the Authority's statutory powers and duties, irrational or procedurally unfair, and the Authority had not had regard to an immaterial consideration. 

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. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court ruled on preliminary issues concerning the claimant's applications under ss 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to appeal/set aside an award. It held that: (i) English law governed the question of separability, such that the arbitrators had had jurisdiction to decide the issue of validity; (ii) the arbitrators had been right to have dismissed the claimant's challenge to their jurisdiction with regard to their conclusion that the assignment of the relevant contract from the first defendant to the second defendant had been valid, and that the second defendant had been a party to the arbitration; and (iii) there was no prospect of success for the claimant's application under s 68 of the Act by reference to s 68(2)(g), and it would be struck out as unarguable.