Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. Following the claimant's success in obtaining an injunction against the defendant, the claimant applied, pursuant to CPR 36.14(3)(d) in the prescribed percentages, calculated by reference to the sum awarded in respect of costs. The Queen's Bench Division held that the imposition of an additional liability would involve an element of penalty which the court did not consider just to impose on the defendant. The court would therefore decline to impose on the defendant an order for an additional amount. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant doctor £45,000by way of damages for libel, following the publication of an article in the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The court held that the defamatory statements made about the claimant had not been justified, the facts and matters on which the comments had been made, had not been proved and the article could not be defended as honest comment. 

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. 

Patent – Infringement. The defendant company, Lilly, produced a cancer treatment marketed under the name Alimta. The claimant companies sought to produce a generic product and obtain regulatory approval for it by reference to Alimta. Lilly contended that doing so would infringe its patent. The Patents Court considered the issue with regard to the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain, and held that the claimant companies were entitled to a declaration of non-infringement concerning all of the jurisdictions in question. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking the quashing of the defendant local authority's grant of planning permission for the installation of two wind turbines. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it would have been driven to conclude that the reasons given in the planning officer's screening opinion had been inadequately expressed, but for the contents of the witness statement. Further, the decision had not been irrational and the planning officer had not misdirected herself as to the expression 'likely to have significant effects'. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision granting two applications to extend retrospectively the 11 and 12-month time limits in relation to two petitions on which the appellant appeared in 2008 and 2010, which the Crown sought because it wished to add the charges contained in those petitions to an indictment in June 2013, the court held that the sheriff's decision was flawed in several respects and there was no evident basis in the history of the proceedings for granting any extension. 

Pension – Pension scheme. Th Chancery Division held, among other things, that, in respect of the Arcadia Group Pension Scheme and the Arcadia Group Senior Executives Pension Scheme, the definitions of retail price index (RPI), applicable in respect of the schemes, operated to confer powers to select an index other than RPI, and that such power of selection was exercisable by the principal employer under the schemes and the trustee of the relevant scheme jointly. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, as amended by Council Directive (EC) 95/7. The request arose during proceedings between the applicant in the main proceedings and the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, concerning the refusal to refund to the applicant the value added tax which it had paid in France for work which had been carried out in France.