Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused an application made by the paternal uncle of two young children for leave to revoke placement orders. The court held that there probably had been a change of circumstances, but, in considering the second stage, namely, whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised, in all the circumstances, the application would be refused. 

Constitutional law – Separation of powers. The Privy Council held that the retrospective repeal of a statutory limitation period for criminal prosecutions in Trinidad and Tobago had been constitutionally valid, in particular, it had not breached the principle of the separation of powers, the rule of law or due process. Further, there had been no abuse of process in the appellants' continued prosecution, and the Director of Public Prosecutions had not been in breach of the duties of impartiality and objectivity by the continued prosecution of the appellants. 

Licensing – Premises. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set aside the district judge's decision that he had had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the revocation of the appellant's premises licence because no person entitled to appeal had done so within the statutory time limit. His conclusion that the mere fact that there had been two corporate entities involved had meant that there had been a mistake of identity which could not be corrected pursuant to the powers in s 123 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 had been an error. 

Personal Injury: o Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £11,000 with total damages of £12,500 awarded. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £1,100 awarded. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, the first sentence of art 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 should be interpreted as meaning that the licensee could bring proceedings alleging infringement of a Community trade mark which was the subject of the licence, although that licence had not been entered in the Register of Community trade marks. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Administrative Court recommended that the offender's tariff for a murder was reduced by one year to seventeen years, less four months spent on remand. His transformation from a racist thug into a sensible, realistic young man satisfied the high threshold for a reduction in the minimum term imposed by a sentencing judge on a young offender. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Privy Council allowed an appeal arising out foreign insolvency proceedings concerning a company owned by Bernard Madoff. The trustee in bankruptcy of the company had sought to enforce a default judgment obtained in New York against the appellant company in Gibraltar, where it held substantial assets. The trustee's application for summary judgment was allowed in part by the Court of Appeal of Gibraltar, which ruled that the trustee's claim that the appellant had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the state of New York had a reasonable prospect of success. The Privy Council, allowing the appellant's appeal, held that, on the facts, there was no basis for the assertion that there was a contractual term that the appellant had submitted to the New York jurisdiction. It held that an agreement to submit to a jurisdiction of a foreign court did not have to be contractual in nature and might be implied as a matter of fact, or by law. In any event, even if a jurisdiction agreement was to be implied, it would not apply to the present avoidance proceedings. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division, in granting the claimants' application for summary judgment, ruled that they were entitled to specific performance of agreements for the assignment to them of patents concerning technology used for eliminating airborne pathogens. The defendants had to do as they had agreed and execute the assignment documentation and there had been no condition precedent in the agreements that the obligation to assign the patents did not arise unless and until royalties had been paid, either in whole or in part. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Queen's Bench Division refused the claimants' application for permission to amend their particulars of claim in their claim alleging defamation and malicious falsehood for reasons including that the proposed amendments could not stand in their present form, included bare assertions, 'smuggles in' a new allegation which needed to be made good by a direct pleading to the effect, if there was evidence to justify it and served no useful purpose.