Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The employment tribunal had rejected the employee's claim for unfair constructive dismissal in circumstances where he had given seven months' notice of termination following the alleged breach of contract. The employee's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal raised a short question of law in relation to s 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act of 1996 as to whether the common law concept of affirmation applied in circumstances where an employee resigned giving notice exceeding the contractual minimum period of notice. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(a), 12(a) and 13(1)(d), (f) and (g) of Directive (EC) 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), and of arts 8(2) and 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between third country nationals who had applied for a residence permit for a fixed period in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum, concerning the Minister's refusal to communicate to those nationals a copy of an administrative document drafted before the adoption of the decisions on their applications for residence permits. 

Limitation of Action – Personal injury claim. The claimant had been a dock worker who had come into contact with asbestos. In 2002 he was diagnosed with lung cancer. In 2009 he instructed solicitors who sent letters before action and, in 2012, issued proceedings seeking damages for personal injury. His claim was dismissed as being outside the limitation period, with the judge refusing to exercise his discretion under s 33(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the provisions of s 11. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the decision as having been correctly made and, in the light of established authorities, gave the true construction of s 33(3) of the Act. 

Mental health – Mental health review tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered a dispute between two local authorities concerning the responsibility for a man who had been made subject to two hospital orders in different areas of the country. The court held, in dismissing the appeal, that where a person had been made subject to a hospital order with restrictions, then conditionally discharged, then recalled to hospital, and then conditionally discharged for a second time, for the purposes of s 117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, he was still to be treated as resident in the area of the same local authority as that in which he had lived before the original hospital order had been made. 

Prison – Life sentence. The claimant was serving a life sentence with a 37-year tariff for the murder of a police officer. He sought judicial review of his classification as a high escape risk. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the nature of the offence and the length of his sentence were highly relevant considerations. The claimant's further arguments were completely untenable and not established by the evidence. 

Mortgage – Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss 26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s 31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s 26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employment tribunal struck out the employee's claim, due to non-compliance with an unless order, and awarded costs against the employee. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal against the costs order on the ground that it had been unclear as to whether the tribunal had exercised any independent scrutiny of the sums claimed by the employer. If it had done so, the judgment had not adequately disclosed its reasoning in that regard. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for rehearing on the question of the amount of the award of costs only. 

Mortgage – Real property. The defendant valued a commercial property for the claimant which was security for a loan. The tenant of the property became insolvent and the property was in the process of being sold for a price far below the valuation. The claimant brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant company which went into liquidation in 2012. It sought judgment for €58,400,000, being the difference between the valuation of the property at €135m and what the claimant contended was the true market value at €76.6m. The Commercial Court concluded that the true value of the property as at December 2005 was €103m and that the defendant had therefore 'negligently' overvalued the property by €32m.