Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The defendants appealed against their convictions for failing to comply with an enforcement notice on the basis that the solicitor then acting for the local authority had deliberately concealed information in obtaining the notice. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that s 285 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and R v Wicks ([1997] 2 All ER 801) had precluded the judge from investigating the alleged unlawful act in the context of the criminal trial. The judge had failed to consider the defendants' alternative argument, but it would be inappropriate to remit the case for that argument to be considered. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants in a human rights claim regarding prison conditions in the United Kingdom had their cases struck out. They applied to have them reinstated. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to CPR 3.9 held that on the facts no relief from sanction would be granted in each of the five actions and they would consequently remain struck out. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants had been convicted of robbery. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, following a reference by the Attorney General pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the judge had erred by deciding that the sentences should be discounted by 50% because he had been sentencing 'lesser offenders'. Although the defendants' precise roles in the robbery had been difficult to define, the evidence had established, at the very least, their full and significant involvement. Consequently, the sentence for each of the three defendants would be five years' imprisonment. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Laboratoires Polive for annulment of 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 Arbora & Ausoni, SLU, and Laboratoires Polive concerning the application by Laboratoires Polive for registration of the word sign 'DODIE' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The European Court of Justice Union ruled that art 41(1) of the Additional Protocol concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 and annexed to the Association Agreement had to be interpreted as meaning that the 'standstill' clause set out in that provision precluded a measure of national law, introduced after the entry into force of that additional protocol in the member state concerned, which imposed on spouses of Turkish nationals residing in that member state, who wished to enter the territory of that state for the purposes of family reunification, the condition that they demonstrate beforehand that they had acquired basic knowledge of the official language of that member state. 

Legal aid – Expert evidence. In private law children proceedings, the district judge had ordered the instruction of a psychotherapist and subsequently ordered that the parties jointly instruct the psychotherapist with the claimant child, who was publicly funded, to bear the costs (the order). The Legal Services Commission refused to pay for the report and the judge, on the claimant's judicial review application, upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the order had been made at the instigation of the children's guardian on the claimant's behalf and it had not fallen foul of s 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a trademark infringement case relating to Community trademarks the claimant sought to re-amend its particulars of claim so as to include other member states in addition to the United Kingdom. The defendants had previously agreed to other amendments and opposed the re-amendment. The Chancery Division allowed the amendment to cover both the territory of the United Kingdom and/or France. 

Damages – Entitlement to damages. The claimants were the tenants of a restaurant. A fire occurred at the restaurant, which was caused by contractors working for the landlord, P. The claimants commenced proceedings against P, seeking a range of remedies including the award of exemplary damages. The Chancery Division held that the claimants were entitled to be placed in the position that they would have been in had the fire not occurred, namely in occupation of restaurant premises with a working kitchen. Exemplary damages were not awarded. 

Contract – Penalty. The claimant company sought a remedy against the defendants for breaches by the defendants of their restrictive covenants following the sale of a business by the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the context of the non-compete covenants the defendants had been in partial breach of the non-compete covenant and the claimant was entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claim concerned allegedly negligent advice given by the defendant company to the claimants in relation to a loan. In the course of proceedings, HMT admitted liability. Following the admissions, the Chancery Division made findings as to the various remaining aspects of the case.