Latest Cases

Sentence – Robbery. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, on the facts, a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment for an offence of attempted robbery had not been unduly lenient. Although a much higher starting point might have been expected, namely one of four years, that had not rendered the adopted starting point of three years' imprisonment unduly lenient. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Right to family life. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by a Pakistani national against a decision of the Upper Tribunal adhering to a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) upholding the respondent's decision to refuse his application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, the court held that the FTT was entitled to conclude that the appellant's case did not amount to a disproportionate interference with his or his wife's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: there were no weighty or exceptional factors which could have justified granting leave outwith the Immigration Rules on the basis of art 8 proportionality. 

Partnership – Existence of partnership disputed. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against a chief master's decision granting summary judgment to the defendants on the claimant's claim that a partnership had been created between the parties. The chief master had been entirely right to conclude that, on the evidence, no partnership had been created within the meaning of s 1(1) of the Partnership Act 1890. There was no evidence that the defendants had carried on business themselves and there was no realistic prospect of establishing that they had agreed to become partners for the purposes of the Act. 

Negligence – Clinical negligence. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant's case on clinical negligence had been made out and that notwithstanding the pressures of a busy labour ward, the system of communication and the response to messages sent between the teams had been inadequate and failed to ensure that a reasonable standard of care had been provided to the claimant and his mother in the period before his birth which had resulted in a period of acute hypoxic-ischemic insult at the end of labour which had led to neurological damage. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant companies' claim that the defendant had infringed their patent, European Patent (UK) 1 656 306, entitled 'opening devices for foil closures'. Neither of the defendant's products fell within the scope of either of the claimants' claims. It followed that none of the defendant's acts had infringed the patent. 

Minor – Custody. The Family Division, on the father's application for the return to Ireland of his 13-year-old son, A, concluded that A's return to Ireland would be ordered, despite his objections. Among other things, it held that, against the expressed strength of A's objections, the countervailing considerations were compelling and the clear influence of the mother and of A's older half-brother upon the development of his objections could not be ignored. 

Employment – Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that he did not have a disability for the purposes of s13 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the tribunal had not made contradictory findings as to the reasons for the employee's dismissal, the employee's ill-health capability and the employee's conduct. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign government. The Commercial Court adjourned a case concerning a dispute over which of two regimes was recognised as the government of Libya following the fall of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011. The dispute arose in respect of Libya's Sovereign Wealth Fund (LIA), which had assets of approximately US$67bn and in circumstances where, shortly before the trial was due to start, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had written to the court and the parties stating Her Majesty's Government's (HMG) position on the question of recognition. The court held, on a point of principle, that where the court had received a formal communication from the British government, it was that communication which was the voice of HMG for legal purposes and it was not open to the court to set aside the letter and look at other material in an attempt to identify what the position of HMG actually was. In the circumstances, it would be both contrary to principle and premature at the present time to rule on the issue as to the chairmanship of the LIA. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the defendants' appeal against an employment tribunal's preliminary ruling that a limited company was entitled to bring proceedings alleging discrimination if it had suffered detrimental treatment because of an associated protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal striking out his claims of alleged detriments after being reinstated. The EAT held that the tribunal had erred or had reached a perverse conclusion in striking out the alleged unfair dismissal claim. The EAT concluded that the claims should go forward and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims.