Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal against a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), and upheld by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), that the respondent, despite his conviction for serious offences, could not be deported to Zambia. Both tribunals had correctly applied paras 398 to 399A of the Immigration Rules, had taken account of the respondent's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights through the lens of the Immigration Rules, and had been entitled to conclude that exceptional circumstances existed which outweighed the public interest in deportation. 

Electricity – Supply. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant companies appeal against the dismissal of their judicial review challenge against the premature closure, subject to certain grace periods, of a statutory scheme that supported the generation of electricity from renewable sources. The claimants failed on all of its submissions regarding breach of a legitimate expectation, violation of pre-legislative assurances and unfairness due to retrospectivity and that the decision had been ultra vires. 

Damages – Tort. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a judge's refusal to grant a 10% uplift on an award of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in the context of a clinical negligence claim. There was no discretion for a trial judge to introduce exceptions to the uplift as otherwise some legally aided claimants would not receive the uplift while others would, and there would be potentially complete uncertainty and inconsistency in awards of the courts. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Germany to face trial for two offences of fraud. The evidence had shown that the prosecutor had decided that he was to be charged and tried, and that the sole reason for the lack of any formal decision to charge and try was that the appellant was not in Germany. 

Vicarious liability – Employer and employee. The Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeal and held that the 'close connection' test used in establishing vicarious liability was correct and would not be improved by a change in vocabulary. Applying that test to the present case meant that the employee's assault on the claimant customer had brought the claimant's case within the close connection test so as to properly enable a finding of vicarious liability against the defendant employer. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held, in a personal injury claim by the claimant against two defendant doctors in relation to her allegedly untimely admission to hospital, that neither defendant had breached their duty of care to the claimant and therefore the claim would be dismissed. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Deutsche Bahn AG and other companies, active in the sector of international air freight forwarding services, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 53 of the European Economic Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerned the applicants, and for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision. 

Criminal law – Immigration offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed appeals by the defendant foreign nationals, which had been referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission on the basis that there had been clear injustice in that both defendants could have relied on the statutory defences of which they had been unaware and not appropriately advised. The court held that, on the evidence, it could not conclude that the relevant defence had not been considered by those then representing the defendants, and, even if the defence had been launched, it could not be concluded that it would have been successful in respect of one defendant, and it could not conclude that that would negate an unequivocal guilty plea by the other defendant.