Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held in answering preliminary issues in a libel action, that the publication of the part of the article on the open website in the United Kingdom had not caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, and the pursuit of proceedings in respect of that publication would be an abuse of process. 

Social Security – Benefit. The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals regarding the eligibility for benefits of European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom. It held that the applicable Regulations did not infringe the rights of the appellants under the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union, and that it was not possible to invoke proportionality to entitle a person to have the right of residence and social assistance in another member state, save perhaps in extreme circumstances that did not apply to the appellants. 

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. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether there was an 'evocation' within the meaning of that provision, the national court was required to refer to the perception of the average consumer who was reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, that concept being understood as covering European consumers and not only consumers of the member state in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the protected geographical indication was manufactured. 

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. 

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the legality of the procedure set out in the Operational Handbook of the Serious Fraud Office for dealing with material potentially subject to legal professional privilege embedded in electronic devices. The procedure was lawful and, in particular, the preliminary sift of paper or electronic material did not have to, as a matter of law, be conducted by third parties. 

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. 

Misrepresentation – Damages. The Chancery Division held that, in the course of the purchase of office buildings, misrepresentations had been made to the claimant companies by individuals acting for the defendant company. The claimants were entitled to the return of their deposit, and to damages for the tort of deceit. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court, followings allegations of sexual abuse by a child B against her father, made findings of fact following an application by the local authority. Despite poor contemporaneous recording of B's evidence, the court concluded that B had been abused as she had alleged as she had spoken of things she could not know about at her age unless either it had happened to her or she had seen it or someone had told her about it.