Latest Cases

Employment – Termination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had not erred in finding that ss 57A and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to the employee's case. The tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusion that it had done, and the employee's appeal would be dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The child S, died in hospital. Post mortem investigations found that she was suffering from a number of injuries usually associated with non-accidental trauma, such as bone fractures, a scalp injury and intra-cranial bleeding. In addition, S, suffered from a number of conditions, all linked to a unique combination of genetic abnormalities. Following a fact finding hearing, the Family Division held that the local authority had not proven on a balance of probabilities that S's injuries had been inflicted non-accidentally. 

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. 

Criminal law – Money laundering. The defendant appealed against his conviction for converting criminal property. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in permitting amendment of the indictment after a successful no case to answer submission or in ruling that the acts alleged in the amended count had not been subsumed by conspiracies to defraud of which he had been acquitted. Further, the Crown Court had had jurisdiction to deal with the amended count where all the activities alleged had been undertaken in Spain by a non-resident of the United Kingdom in relation to a Spanish bank account. 

Damages – Inquiry as to damages. The claimant, Jodie Henderson, was a singer, songwriter and musician. In earlier proceedings, the court had held that she was entitled to damages from the defendant for the infringement of her performer's rights in respect of a track called 'Heartbroken'. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court conducted an inquiry as to damages and held that the claimant was entitled to total damages of £35,000. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant agreed to sell to the defendants a freehold property. The issue arose of whether the defendants were liable to pay to the claimant the VAT charge on that transaction. A summary judgment application by the claimant was allowed. An appeal by the defendants was allowed. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it could be said that the parties intended that nothing was or could become payable by the defendants over and above the specified purchase price of £130,000. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claims that the employer was liable for disability discrimination by proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and an internal appeal, but found that all other complaints of disability discrimination were not well-founded. The employee's request for a review was refused. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the refusal of a review, held that the tribunal judge had not committed any error of law in approaching the review. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants, T and N, were Iraqi refugees who had taken refuge in Syria and their cases were referred to the Secretary of State for consideration of their resettlement to the United Kingdom. Their applications were refused on the ground that their resettlement in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State maintained the decision and the claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the attempt to impose an obligation upon the Secretary of State to consider their applications in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 was unnecessary and would be contrary to the preservation of absolute flexibility. 

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. 

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.