Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant's case against the defendant hospital in negligence succeeded, in that there had been negligence in failing to perform a timely brain scan and call an ambulance and that those failures caused the claimant's injury. The amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity payable was £107,470, with a total award in the sum of £454,858.65. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the applicant local authority's application for an interim care order regarding LW, who had been born on 16 January 2016. The court criticised delays arising from the local authority's conduct and stressed the importance of making applications for public law proceedings in respect of new born babies timeously and especially, where the circumstances arguably required the removal of the child from its parent(s), within at most five days of the child's birth. 

Risk of sexual harm order (RSHO) – Interim order. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision refusing a motion for an interim RSHO, the court held that the basis for the sheriff's conclusion that it was not just to make an interim RSHO was flawed: he ought to have given due weight to the more general risk the respondent posed rather than to certain, particular circumstances in which the risk might have happened to manifest itself. 

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by the European Commission against Malta, by which the Commission had sought a declaration that by deducting the value of civil-service old-age pensions received under pension schemes from other member states from Maltese old-age pensions, Malta had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 46b of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and under art 54 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by 1&1 Internet AG (1&1) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Unoe Bank, SA and 1&1 concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word sign '1e1' as a Community trade mark. 

Patent – Revocation. The Patents Court, among other things, held that it had jurisdiction to grant a declaration sought by the claimant company that its products, which were biosimilar to the antibody 'adalimumab' used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and/or psoriasis, would have been obvious at the priority dates of the defendant's patents. Section 74 of the Patents Act 1977 did not prohibit a declaration relating to a published application. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal in respect of the judge's decision that the claimant had been underpaid commission in respect of a deal and that the defendant should have allocated two-thirds of the available commission to the United Kingdom office. In particular, the court considered whether the judge had been right to have interfered with the defendant's exercise of what it described as the broad discretion provided to it in the contractual documents. 

Local authority – Charging for care accommodation. Sheriff Court: In an action in which a local authority sought to recover £42,750 from the defender in respect of care accommodation provided to a third party, contending that the defender had received a gratuitous alienation of an asset by the third party, made knowingly and with the intention of avoiding charges for the accommodation, the court repelled the pursuer's preliminary plea that the defence was irrelevant because the pursuer's determination that heritable property had been disposed of in order to avoid or decrease the amount the third party might be liable to pay for her accommodation could be challenged only by judicial review in Court of Session, and it allowed parties a proof of their respective averments. 

Director – Duty. The Chancery Division held that the defendant, A, had acted in breach of fiduciary duty in causing the claimant companies to grant security over various properties held by them to support a facility obtained by another company owned by a discretionary trust of which A was a beneficiary. On the facts, there was no limitation issue in relation to the breaches. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Advance Magazine Publishers ,Inc., (Advance) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Selecciones Americanas, SA and Advance regarding the application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'VOGUE CAFE' as a Community trade mark.