Latest Cases

Employment – Disability. The employee had succeeded before the employment tribunal in his claim for disability discrimination relating to his medical condition. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, found no error in law in the tribunal's finding that the employee's severe disfigurement or physical impairment had a substantial adverse effect on the employee's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, thereby amounting to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. 

Sentence – Drug offences. Sixteen defendants appealed against the sentences imposed on them for their part in a conspiracy to supply large quantities of Class A drugs to crime groups for onward distribution. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the judge had correctly used the descriptors within the sentencing guideline for leading, significant and lesser roles for the purposes of distinguishing between the roles played by different defendants. The sentencing exercise had received detailed consideration both of the facts and the approach to sentencing in the area. 

Elections – Local government. The petitioners had issued an election petition that sought to declare void the mayoral elections that had been held in Tower Hamlets. The petitioners applied to have the election court held outside the borough because, they submitted, there had been widespread intimidation of electors who did not support the successful candidate, including harassment of one of the petitioners, because witnesses were likely to be subjected to intimidation and because any venue in the borough would be surrounded by large groups of supporters for the successful candidate, as had been the case during the election. The Queen's Bench Division held that there were no special circumstances that justified fixing the place of trial outside the borough where the Commissioner who heard the petition had the power to discuss security with the police and could move the venue at any time, to another one within the borough, if he felt that it had become inappropriate. 

Adoption – Application. Following an application by a married couple to adopt a child that had been living with them for nine years, the Family Division dispensed with the consent as required by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and made the adoption order as on the facts the child was clearly thriving with the applicants. 

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. 

Patent – Petition for revocation. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking a declaration that a European patent for a dosage regimen for use of levonorgestrel as a method of emergency contraception was invalid and should be revoked on grounds including obviousness. The Patents Court, having considered relevant person skilled in the art, held that it had been obvious from a report, discussing interim results of research regarding the effectiveness of a regimen involving a single dose as compared a two-dose regimen, that such a regimen could be pursued and investigated with a reasonable or fair expectation of success. Accordingly, the challenge to the validity of the patent on the ground of obviousness succeeded. 

Injunction – Freezing order. The claimants (Anglo Financial SA and Fortis), brought proceedings against the defendant solicitor in respect of alleged breaches of loan agreements. A freezing order was made against G without notice. The claimants applied to continue the freezing order. The Chancery Division dismissed the application, ruling that there was no basis to find a real risk of dissipation of assets by G in the absence of a freezing order. 

Mental health – Human rights. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a patient who was detained indefinitely in the State Hospital, challenging a decision to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking there, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondents did not have the power to implement the prohibition on smoking under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and in holding that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, or, if it was, that there had been disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights. 

Judge – District judge. The defendant Judicial Appointments Commission (the JAC) rejected the claimant solicitor and deputy district judge's application for appointment as a district judge, as he had seven penalty points on his driving licence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the JAC had been entitled to consider that public confidence in the standards of the judiciary would not be maintained if persons appointed to judicial office had more than six points endorsed on their licence. The JAC had appreciated its discretion to depart from the normal position and had not exercised it. Further, the decision had not been irrational, by virtue of the fact that the claimant continued to sit as a deputy district judge. 

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.