Latest Cases

Contract – Penalty. The claimant company sought a remedy against the defendants for breaches by the defendants of their restrictive covenants following the sale of a business by the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the context of the non-compete covenants the defendants had been in partial breach of the non-compete covenant and the claimant was entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for manslaughter arising from a single punch with a bare fist. The Attorney General brought a reference pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that the sentence had not been one which could be described as unduly lenient and had been one which had been within the range reasonably available to a trial judge. 

Human rights – Privacy. The applicant, who lived in the United Kingdom, had severely limited mobility. She had complained to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR), alleging that, following the reduction by a local authority of the amount allocated for her weekly care, there had been a violation of her right to respect for private and family life contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR upheld the applicant's complaint in respect of the period between 21 November 2008 and 4 November 2009 because the interference with her rights during that period had not been in accordance with domestic law. However, the complaint concerning the period after 4 November 2009 was inadmissible on the ground that the interference with the applicant's rights during that latter period had been 'necessary in a democratic society', pursuant to art 8(2) of the Convention. 

Extradition – Discharge of fugitive. The Divisional Court, in allowing an appeal against a discharge of a European Arrest Warrant, held that, in the circumstances, the respondent had not demonstrated that extradition to Slovakia would be disproportionate under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor would it breach his rights under art 3 of the Convention. 

Adoption – Application. The judge made care and placement orders concerning two children. The parents sought leave to oppose the making of adoption orders and the transfer of the proceedings to the Slovak Republic. Other organisations applied for the placement of the children in foster care in the Slovak Republic. The Family Court, in dismissing the applications, held that none of the matters relied upon by the parents had amounted to a change in circumstances. With respect to the transfer of proceedings to and placement of the children in the Slovak Republic, it was too late in the proceedings and the judge had already determined those issues. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following the murder of the mother by the father, the local authority sought care and placement orders for the three children of the family. The maternal grandmother and the other members of the family opposed the making of such orders. The local authority made the orders sought applying the criteria of the welfare of each individual child being considered paramount.t 

Immigration – Detention. The defendant Secretary of State detained the claimant Dutch national on the basis that he was subject to non-automatic deportation due to his criminal offence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of a duty to make inquiries as to the claimant's mental health and there was wholly insufficient evidence to establish that he had had a serious mental illness that could not be adequately managed in detention. Further, there had been additional features justifying detention in the claimant's case, including the risk of his committing further offences and the risk of his absconding. 

Indemnity – Negligence. Following a flood at a recently constructed block of flats, the building owner commenced proceedings against the main contractor which led to a series of claims against the chain of sub-contractors. The judge found that the mechanical sub-sub-sub-contractor (Robson) had been liable for two defects in workmanship which had been the principal cause of the flood with the result that the Robson was liable under the indemnity clause contained in the agreement by which it had been engaged by HSE. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld that decision and found that HSE's failure to inspect the work properly, even when the breaches should have been detected upon a reasonable inspection of the work, had not shut out its claim under the indemnity. It could not have been presumed that the parties had intended to confine the indemnity clause only to workmanship breaches which had been invisible upon reasonable inspection. 

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. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. A 17 year old girl, P, took an overdose and refused life saving treatment when presented at a hospital run by the defendant NHS Trust. The Trust came to court seeking various declarations that it was lawful and in P's best interests for the medical practitioners having responsibility for her care and treatment to treat her for the overdose notwithstanding the fact that she was refusing treatment. The Family Division held that it was lawful to make such a declaration in order to save P's life.