Latest Cases

Feeds

Lunn v Kanagaratnam

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The Queen's Bench Division ruled on a list of six disputed facts in connection with a clinical negligence claim arising out of the allegedly negligent manner in which the defendant had obtained the claimant's consent to surgery. 

Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Mr Hesse against a judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG(Porsche) and Mr Hesse concerning an application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'Carrera' as a Community trade mark. 

Valsts ienemumu dienests v Arturs Stretinskis

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, art 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a buyer, who was a natural person, and a seller, which was a legal person, within which a kin of that buyer actually had the power to influence the sales price of goods for the benefit of that buyer, had to be regarded as being related persons within the meaning of art 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. 

Onos v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove her and her three children. However, it declared that the entire period of her detention had been unlawful, as it had breached the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. Accordingly, claimant was entitled to nominal damages for the first 72 hours of her detention, but compensatory damages for the extent to which her detention had exceeded 72 hours. 

Daniel and another v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust and another

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held that in a claim for medical negligence in respect of the death of a prisoner by his former foster parent and their son, the claimants, that although the foster parent did have victim status under art 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the claimants had failed to establish violations of arts 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and accordingly their claims were dismissed. 

*Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Terrorism – Sanctions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in respect of a decision made by the respondent Secretary of State in September 2005, in his capacity as a member of the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee, which removed the hold the United Kingdom had previously placed on the appellant's designation by the Sanctions Committee. The court ruled on, among other things, issues concerning the tests to be applied in judging the legality of the decision and their consequences under domestic law. 

*Rutherford and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

Social security – Housing benefit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that reg B13 of the amended Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213, unlawfully discriminated, without an objective and reasonable justification, against female victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation under the 'Sanctuary Scheme' and against disabled children living in specially adapted accommodation who required overnight respite care, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The submissions that there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. 

Goldtrail Travel Ltd (in liquidation) v Aydin and others

Court of Appeal – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the third defendant company's application to vary an order requiring it to pay a judgment debt into court as a condition of the continuation of its appeal against a judgment awarding the claimant company (in liquidation) equitable compensation for dishonest assistance of breaches of fiduciary duty against the company by its sole director. The court took account of the position of third defendant's controlling shareholder and chairman, who was wealthy and able to provide it with financial assistance, and held that the third defendant had not established that it could not have satisfied the condition. In those circumstances, the court had no proper alternative but to dismiss the appeal. 

European Commission v Cyprus

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by failing to repeal, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, the age-related criterion in art 27 of the Law 97 (Ι)/1997 on Pensions, Cyprus, which deterred workers from leaving their member state of origin in order to work in another member state, or in an EU institution, or in another international organisation and which had the effect of creating unequal treatment between migrant workers including those who worked in the EU institutions or in another international organisation, on the one hand, and civil servants who had worked in Cyprus, on the other, Cyprus had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and under art 4(3) TEU. 

*R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice

Mental health – Patient. In allowing the appellant patient's appeal, the Supreme Court held that it would be wrong to have a presumption that an anonymity order should be made in every case in civil proceedings in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital or otherwise subject to compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. However, in the present case, the anonymity order in place would be maintained on the basis that without it there was a very real risk that the progress the appellant had made during his long years of treatment in hospital would be put in jeopardy and his re-integration in the community, which had been an important purpose of his transfer to hospital, would not succeed. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Tipping points

The age of criminal responsibility, extreme weather and conflict resolution – plus, new protocol for reporting bullying at the Bar

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases