Latest Cases

Patent – Petition for revocation. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking a declaration that a European patent for a dosage regimen for use of levonorgestrel as a method of emergency contraception was invalid and should be revoked on grounds including obviousness. The Patents Court, having considered relevant person skilled in the art, held that it had been obvious from a report, discussing interim results of research regarding the effectiveness of a regimen involving a single dose as compared a two-dose regimen, that such a regimen could be pursued and investigated with a reasonable or fair expectation of success. Accordingly, the challenge to the validity of the patent on the ground of obviousness succeeded. 

Employment – Disability. The employee had succeeded before the employment tribunal in his claim for disability discrimination relating to his medical condition. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, found no error in law in the tribunal's finding that the employee's severe disfigurement or physical impairment had a substantial adverse effect on the employee's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, thereby amounting to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. 

Employment – Contract of service. The proceedings concerned an appeal against the determination that the defendant university was liable in negligence to the claimant, a former employee of the defendant, in respect of its decision to instigate disciplinary proceedings to investigate an allegation that the claimant had been complicit in the preparation of false and misleading employment references. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to find the defendant in breach of its duty to the claimant, and the reasoning which had led to that conclusion had been flawed. 

Agriculture – Agricultural land. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the definition of 'permanent pasture' set out in art 2(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) 1120/2009 had to be interpreted as covering agricultural land which was currently, and had been for five years or more, used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage, even though that land had been ploughed up and seeded with another variety of herbaceous forage other than that which had previously been grown on it during that period. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal – Judicial review. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which the Lord Ordinary granted the prayer of the petition and reduced a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) refusing the petitioner leave to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal, the court held that there was nothing in the Lord Ordinary's opinion to persuade it that he had considered and decided the merits of the judicial review and it was clear that he failed to recognise that the court's interlocutor following a procedural first hearing did not determine the merits. 

Immigration – Appeal. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which had set aside the First Tier Tribunal's (FTT) decision to allow his appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to revoke a deportation order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal had not erred in law in setting aside the FTT's determination and, further, had not erred in re-deciding the issue de novo. 

Sentence – Murder. The defendants appealed against their sentences for conspiracy to rob and murder singer and songwriter, Joss Stone. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed the appeals. It reduced the first defendant's sentence from life imprisonment with a minimum term of ten years and eight months for conspiracy to murder, with a concurrent determinate sentence of ten years' imprisonment for conspiracy to rob to a minimum term of four years and eight months, with a concurrent term of seven years' imprisonment. The second defendant's sentence of a determinate term of 18 years' imprisonment for conspiracy to murder with a concurrent term of eight years for the conspiracy to rob was reduced to ten years' imprisonment, with a concurrent term of five years' imprisonment. 

Riot – Damage. In the course of the 2011 London Riots, a gang of youths broke into a warehouse, looted it and burned it down with petrol bombs. The judge held that the gang were 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled' so that the defendant Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime was liable to compensate anyone who had sustained losses, but that the defendant's liability did not extend to consequential loss. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had been correct in his findings on liability. However, s 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 included a right to compensation for consequential loss. 

Sentence – Drug offences. Sixteen defendants appealed against the sentences imposed on them for their part in a conspiracy to supply large quantities of Class A drugs to crime groups for onward distribution. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the judge had correctly used the descriptors within the sentencing guideline for leading, significant and lesser roles for the purposes of distinguishing between the roles played by different defendants. The sentencing exercise had received detailed consideration both of the facts and the approach to sentencing in the area. 

Mental health – Human rights. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a patient who was detained indefinitely in the State Hospital, challenging a decision to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking there, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondents did not have the power to implement the prohibition on smoking under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and in holding that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, or, if it was, that there had been disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights.