Latest Cases

Shipping – Arbitration clause. The parties contracted to transport rice under bills of lading that contained a number of different arbitration clauses. The claimant sought security from the defendant, which sent a letter of understanding setting out an arbitration procedure. A dispute arose as to alleged damage to the rice. The defendant submitted that the letter was not to be relied upon in determining how the arbitration should be carried out. The Commercial Court held that the claimant had validly commenced arbitration and the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to determine all the claims made by the claimant under the bills of lading. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant immigration detention charity issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the lawfulness of the defendant Secretary of State's policy and practice in the operation of the detained fast track (DFT) for the detention of some asylum seekers while their asylum claims were determined. The Administrative Court held that the various shortcomings in the DFT process required the early instruction of lawyers absent from the process. That was sufficiently significant that the DFT carried too high a risk of unfair determinations for those who might be vulnerable applicants. 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The employment tribunal upheld claims by the employee that, inter alia, she had been discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy, maternity and her sex and awarded her compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the respondents' appeal against that finding, held that the tribunal had not applied the correct legal test. Accordingly, the findings of pregnancy and maternity discrimination would be set aside and the matter remitted to the same tribunal. 

Contract – Property. The defendant introduced a scheme to encourage small-scale low carbon generation installations. It amended the scheme by a proposal. Judicial review proceedings concluded that the proposal was unlawful. The claimants brought a claim maintaining that the damage was done to them by the simple making of the proposal. They sought damages against the defendant pursuant to art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1) on the basis that the proposal was an unjustified interference with their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Queen's Bench determined certain preliminary issues and decided that, as a matter of general principle, the claimants would be able to recover damages for the wrongful interference with their possessions. 

Patent – Infringement. The second claimant (Rovi) issued proceedings for infringement of its patent against the first two defendants (Virgin) in respect of one of Virgin's set-top boxes. Virgin conceded infringement, but counterclaimed for revocation on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over three forms of prior art. The Patents Court held that the relevant patent claims were obvious over one form of prior art and fell to be revoked. Since no claim survived, there could be no question of infringement and Rovi's action was dismissed. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant bank was granted summary judgment upon its claim against the defendant, relying on the issue estoppel created by the court in an earlier judgment in the proceedings. In light of a subsequent decision by the Court of Appeal, it had become apparent that there was no such issue estoppel. Accordingly, the parties returned to the Commercial Court. The claimant sought that the court require the defendants to pay a sum of money into court or to make an interim payment to the claimant. The Commercial Court declined to order an interim payment or that a sum of money be paid into court. 

Contract – Consumer contract. The proceedings involved a contract made in the claimant's home that the claimant had purported to cancel. The defendant charged him a cancellation fee and refused to refund him a deposit. In finding for the claimant, the Supreme Court held that a failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel did not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1816. 

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered the appeal brought by Mr Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court had not granted in full Mr Strack's form of order requesting annulment of several decisions of the European Commission relating to his applications for access to various documents based on Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents). 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2 and 3 of Directive (EC) 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council (to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks). The request had been made in proceedings between Apple Inc (Apple) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, concerning the latter's rejection of an application by Apple for registration of a trade mark. 

Adoption – Order. The Family Court considered an application by the daughter of an adopted person seeking access to the original court file relating to her father's adoption. The court considered r 14.24 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (and its statutory predecessor), on which there was no direct authority, and held that, in circumstances, the application should be granted.