Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel (the panel) of the respondent General Medical Council found that the appellant doctor's fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a sanction of erasure from the medical register. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sanction was disproportionate. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel's determination was unimpeachable. It had come to a conclusion that it had been entitled to on the evidence before it and had provided adequate reasoning for the task which it had had to discharge. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was convicted of assault in Poland, for which he received a suspended sentence, and he committed a further offence during his probationary period. He then came to the UK, where he worked to financially support his fiancée's family in Poland. A European arrest warrant was issued and the district judge made an order for his extradition to Poland. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

National Health Service – Health authority. From 2006 until 2008, the claimant's late mother had been a resident at a nursing home. The defendant was asked by the claimant to review the position of his mother prior to her death in respect of her eligibility for continuing healthcare throughout her residence at the home. The defendant refused to assess her position between May 2007 and her death in 2008, and the claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision not to review the May and September assessments was irrational and unreasonable. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant, Lehman Brothers, brought a claim for the balance of a sum which it contended was due from the defendant arising out of early termination of four option transactions governed by an International Swaps and Derivatives Association agreement, together with interest. The defendant had paid the claimant €1,849,968.99. The Commercial Court held, among other things, that the defendant had breached its contractual obligation to use the agreed market quotation formula to determine the sum due. Using that formula, a payment of €2,963,081.18 should have been made. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv, established in Belgium, and YouView TV Ltd, established in the United Kingdom, concerning the application by the latter company for registration of a word mark 'YouView+' as a Community trade mark. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Application for disclosure. The proceedings concerned the ownership of property and whether that property formed part of the deceased's estate. In the course of proceedings, the judge made an order preventing the disclosure of certain information given to the Revenue and Customs Commissions. The second defendant appealed. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the judge had been wrong in her conclusion that the material documents and/or their contents were not subject to legal advice privilege and, to that extent, the appeal would be allowed. 

Medicine – Product licence. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on the basis that, when conducting a re-inspection, the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) was knowingly gathering evidence in the context and for the purpose of infringement proceedings which had been brought against it under Commission Regulation (EC) 658/2007. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not declare that the MHRA's response to the European Medicines Agency's requests under art 8(3) of the Regulation had been unlawful or rule substantially rule on the contention that the material provided contained errors. Further, the MHRA's conduct had not been procedurally improper and unlawful in failing to advise the claimant of the potential use of the information. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant was the freehold owner of a piece of empty land (the adjoining plot) immediately adjacent to a property in Holland Park, which was owned by the defendant management company. The defendant sought an interim injunction to prevent the claimant from applying for planning permission to build a house which she proposed to build on the adjoining plot. The Chancery Division, refusing the application, held that that difference in the risk of unquantifiable damage pointed firmly in favour of not granting the injunction, in particular, having regard to various undertakings which the claimant had offered. 

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.