Latest Cases

Criminal law – Child sex offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that a 3-year community order, with a supervision requirement for 2 years and a rehabilitation activity requirement for 30 days, for the offence of rape of a child under 13, contrary to s 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, had been unduly lenient. The recorder had been wrong to have deemed the case as exceptional in order to depart from the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines: Sexual Offences. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of 42 months' detention in custody. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for rectification of its pension scheme where, as the result of a mistake, a rule setting out the company's contribution rate in the part of the pension that was attributable to pensionable service had not been properly implemented. The court made a declaration so that what the relevant deed of amendment said was brought into line with what, in law, it could achieve. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's applications for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the construction of 12 dwellings and its approval of the discharge of five conditions of that planning permission. There had been no misinterpretation of the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, members of the defendant's committee had not been misled and there had not been any misdirection or error in the approval of the details under three conditions. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court declared that the claimant Sudanese national's immigration detention for the period between 19 September and 29 September 2014 had been unlawful. In circumstances where the claimant's detention had been approved on the basis that his judicial review proceedings would be expedited, he should have been released the day after the decision not to seek expedition. 

Income tax – Loss relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant taxpayers' appeal against the dismissal of their claim for judicial review of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners' (the Revenue) amendments to their tax returns, by which the Revenue declined to accept their claims for loss relief in relation to their investments in certain film partnerships. Among other things, the court rejected the taxpayers' procedural arguments to the effect that the Revenue had not been entitled to enquire into the individual taxpayers' tax returns for the years 02, pursuant to the combined effect of ss 9A and 12AC(3) of the Taxes Management Act 1970, or, as a result of such enquiries, and a subsequent partnership settlement agreement, to amend such returns pursuant to ss 50(9) and 54 of the Act. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Benelli Q.J. Srl (Benelli) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Benelli and Demharter GmbH, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of a figurative mark 'MOTO B' as a Community trade mark. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court dismissed the claim of a telecommunications company, Unwired Planet, with regard to alleged infringement by the defendant company of two patents involving self configuring and optimisation of cell neighbours in wireless telecommunications networks. The court held that, among other things, the patents were invalid for obviousness over a related document and would be revoked. 

Land charge – General equitable charge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the present was not a case in which 'tacking' arose, and the second respondent retained its priority as first chargee in respect of an advance made by it in October 2006. There had been no new or further advance in or following March 2009, nor anything which the law would deem to have been a new or further advance, nor any agreement that the second respondent should be treated as having made a new advance. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused the application by the father, a convicted sex offender for contact with his son as no method of managing the kind of dangers that a convicted sex offender like the father might pose even to his own son had been put before the court. The mother's application for an order under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 would be refused as the present case was not one involving repeated applications. Nor had it displayed on the part of the father the kind of behaviour which, typically, founded a successful application for such an order. 

Building contract – Terms. The Technology and Construction Court determined preliminary issues which arose in the court of a claim brought by the claimant company in respect of building work carried out at a warehouse in Kent. The issues included, among other things, whether a clause concerning limitation and notice of complaint, had been incorporated into a sub-contract between the first defendant contractor and second defendant sub-contractor and, if so incorporated, whether it was subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.