Latest Cases

Copyright – Infringement. In the course of proceedings concerning alleged breach of copyright regarding the cartoon character Betty Boop, the parties made a number of applications. The Intellectual Property and Community Trade Mark Court dismissed the defendants' application to have the court decline jurisdiction and for the proceedings to be stayed, and allowed the claimants' application for summary judgment. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. RR was an elderly lady suffering from dementia. She was being looked after at home by her son and his companion. Following a safeguarding scare, the local authority removed RR from her home without informing her son or seeking permission from the court. The Family Division made declarations to the effect that as a result there had been a breach of RR's rights under art 5 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that, in deciding to refuse contact between E and other members of her family, the judge had failed to take into account a number of highly significant matters, the omission of which rendered the judicial analysis unsafe. The issue of contact needed to be reheard by a different judge who would be in a position to take on board all of the relevant factors and, if necessary, be furnished with an up–to-date appraisal of E's wishes and feelings, and information concerning any other developments. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders of a district judge for his extradition to Poland to stand trial for fraud, on the basis that it would be oppressive, by reason of his chronic and untreated pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the evidence that had not been before the judge, it would be oppressive by reason of the appellant's medical condition to order his extradition. 

Copyright – Ownership. The claimant company issued proceedings, seeking remedies against the defendants for infringement of copyright and against the first defendant for breaches of contract. The defendants counterclaimed. The Chancery Division ruled on various issues arising out of copyright proceedings. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a Decision Notice against the applicant director of a mortgage and insurance company stating that it had decided to: (a) withdraw his approval to perform controlled functions in relation to the company; and (b) make a prohibition order against him. The applicant contested the FCA's decision and referred the Decision Notice to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The tribunal dismissed the reference, deciding that although the applicant had not been deliberately dishonest, he had lacked integrity in his business dealings and his dealings with the FCA. 

Patent – Infringement. The second claimant (Rovi) issued proceedings for infringement of its patent against the first two defendants (Virgin) in respect of one of Virgin's set-top boxes. Virgin conceded infringement, but counterclaimed for revocation on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over three forms of prior art. The Patents Court held that the relevant patent claims were obvious over one form of prior art and fell to be revoked. Since no claim survived, there could be no question of infringement and Rovi's action was dismissed. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. In three related actions, different United Kingdom health authorities claimed damages for alleged breaches of competition law against four companies in the Servier group (together, Servier). Servier sought a stay of the Scottish and Northern Irish proceedings, submitting that for it to have to defend multiple claims would be contrary to the overriding objective under the CPR of ensuring that cases were dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the right way to proceed was by active case management of the three actions as they proceeded in parallel, and not by the imposition of a blanket stay. 

European Union – Imports. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) 338/97. The request had been made in the course of a dispute between Sofia Zoo and the Inspectorate General of the State for the Conservation of the Environment and Nature and for the Administration of Water, which concerned the latter's decision to order the confiscation of specimens of wild animals originating from Tanzania. 

Police – Complaint against police. In the course of litigation following 'Plebgate', the claimant police officers sought judicial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's decision to re-determine the mode of investigation of them. The Divisional Court found that, as a result of procedural irregularities, the report of the original investigation had been invalid and of no effect. The argument that the power to re-determine the mode of investigation had not been available could not succeed, but there had been apparent bias or predetermination in that decision.