Latest Cases

Patent – Infringement. The defendant company, LEO, owned two pharmaceutical patents. The claimant company, TEVA, opposed both of the patents on the grounds that they were, among other things, obvious. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, held that, given a prior United States patent, the two patents were obvious. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to France to face drug transportation charges. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the European arrest warrant had contained proper particulars and the consequences of the interference with the appellant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not so exceptionally severe as to outweigh the public interest in extradition. Further, the judge had been entitled to conclude that it had been in the interests of justice that the appellant's extradition should take place. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant pharmaceutical company brought a claim against the defendant laboratories in relation to the repackaging of imported pharmaceutical products from abroad without the relevant license. The defendant put in a defence regarding the involvement of a sister company. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence it was arguable that some of the pharmaceutical products were invoiced and supplied to the sister company, which were then delivered by the claimant to the defendant laboratories for repackaging. The court gave the defendant conditional leave to defend. 

Company – Distribution of assets. M built up a considerable business involving property and entertainment ventures. When he died, his business was split between the parties. A dispute arose and the claimants brought proceedings against P, M's brother. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that P had not, among other things, been in breach of contract, nor had he acted negligently. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for her in purchasing a property. The solicitors did not advise her about restrictive covenants that affected the property. She carried out works in breach of the covenants and the neighbour with the benefit of the covenants complained. The claimant instructed the defendants to act for her. They did not, for some time, advise her to stop all works on the property but, when they did, she continued the works and the neighbour took out an injunction. The Recorder found the defendant had failed to make clear that the works had to stop and that, had the claimant known of the covenants, she would not have gone ahead with the purchase. Damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Recorder had erred in finding that the bringing of the injunction proceedings had been caused by the defendant's negligence, but that his conclusion that the claimant would not have gone ahead with the purchase had been correct. The appeal against the calculation of damages was successful in part. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. Claimant bringing action in respect of breach of duty against defendant solicitor following employment claim. The defendant admitted breach of duty in relation to the failure to lodge the claimant's cross-appeal before the relevant deadline but maintained that the claimant had not lost an opportunity of any value because the grounds of cross-appeal had no more than a negligible prospect of success. The remaining allegations of breach of duty were denied. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been no breach of duty however in respect to the admitted breach however the claimant was entitled to recover damages for the loss of opportunity suffered as a consequence of the defendant's breach. The loss of that opportunity as a loss of an 18% chance of overall success, either in the litigation or by achieving a settlement. 

Divorce – Arrangements for care and upbringing of children. Following the breakdown of their marriage and subsequent divorce, the parties participated in a financial dispute resolution on 7 November 2013. The parties were able to agree final capital apportionment between them, including the making of a pension sharing order. Two areas upon which they could not agree were whether or not there should be some 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife; and whether or not those periodical payments payable to the wife should be the subject of some ultimate term or cut off. Giving consideration to s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Family Division stated that it would be totally speculative to consider a 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife or to say that they would be subject to a cut off. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for manslaughter arising from a single punch with a bare fist. The Attorney General brought a reference pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that the sentence had not been one which could be described as unduly lenient and had been one which had been within the range reasonably available to a trial judge. 

Design – Design right. The claimant brought proceedings against his brother, the first defendant, and the second defendant for infringement of a United Kingdom registered design and of UK unregistered design rights in respect of a contact lens cleaning device. A judge had found that the unregistered design rights relied on by the claimant had been infringed by sales by the second defendant of two products and he ordered an account in relation to the sales of one product. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, having considered the relevant profit made by the first claimant from the sale of the product, held that he was liable to pay the claimant the sum of £15,800. 

Injunction – Interlocutory. The Queen's Bench Division granted an application by the claimants, Russell Brand and Jemima Goldsmith, to continue an anti-harassment injunction against the defendant masseuse where, on the facts, it was satisfied that the claimants were likely to succeed in establishing at trial that the defendant had committed the tort of harassment and where the balance of convenience favoured continuing injunctive relief until the full trial of the matter.