Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Opposition to grant of new tenancy of business premises. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a landlord's appeal in respect of a declaration that he had not established his entitlement to rely on s 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and an order that a new tenancy of business premises should be granted by the landlord to the tenant. The case was remitted for a re-trial before a different judge. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Queen's Bench Division gave directions in the claimants' case in which it had been alleged that the defendant's drug was worse than other drugs of a similar nature in relation to symptoms following discontinuation of its use such that the drug was 'defective' within s 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. It was not appropriate to bring the process to an end under the court's case management powers at the present stage. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 14(b) of Directive (EC) 2009/103 should be interpreted as meaning that that provision did not contain any specific conflict-of-law rule intended to determine the law applicable to the action for indemnity between insurers in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court made rulings in a claim concerning transgenic mice that could be used as platforms for therapeutic antibody discovery. In dismissing the claim of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the court held that the defendants' counterclaim for insufficiency in the patent succeeded, and hence all the patents in issue were invalid. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed a claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her application for an interim payment, which had been made in the course of proceedings in which she claimed damages against the defendant NHS trust for personal injuries she alleged she had sustained as a result of clinical negligence. On the present state of the evidence and argument, the court could not be satisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount of money. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's proceedings against the defendant NHS Trust for injury and loss allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant's medical and midwifery staff in the management of her mother's labour. On the evidence, the claimant could not establish medical causation. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney made by the patient in favour of C as her sole attorney as according to s 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, C had behaved in a way that contravened his authority and was not in the patient's best interests. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Latvia to serve a mandatory custodial sentence of five years for driving without a licence and whilst under the influence of narcotic substances, and two counts of possession of methylampetamine. Mandatory sentences were not, of themselves, disproportionate and the balance struck by the judge with respect to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been wrong.