Latest Cases

Feeds

*Browning v Information Commissioner and another

Practice – Hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the circumstances in which the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) could lawfully adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives were excluded from the hearing or part of it when it was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner. It held that the features most comprehensively spelt out in British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Information Commissioner and another ([2011] UKFTT EA_2010_0064 (GRC)) fully justified the approach taken in the present case, in which the maximum candour possible had been achieved. 

CJ (Dominica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Appeal. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which had set aside the First Tier Tribunal's (FTT) decision to allow his appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to revoke a deportation order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal had not erred in law in setting aside the FTT's determination and, further, had not erred in re-deciding the issue de novo. 

Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd v OPD Laboratories Ltd

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant pharmaceutical company brought a claim against the defendant laboratories in relation to the repackaging of imported pharmaceutical products from abroad without the relevant license. The defendant put in a defence regarding the involvement of a sister company. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence it was arguable that some of the pharmaceutical products were invoiced and supplied to the sister company, which were then delivered by the claimant to the defendant laboratories for repackaging. The court gave the defendant conditional leave to defend. 

*Teva UK Ltd and another company v Leo Pharma A/S

Patent – Infringement. The defendant company, LEO, owned two pharmaceutical patents. The claimant company, TEVA, opposed both of the patents on the grounds that they were, among other things, obvious. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, held that, given a prior United States patent, the two patents were obvious. 

O (A Child) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant, a 16-year-old young woman, had been living with a maternal aunt and uncle, and subsequently went to stay with a paternal aunt. The defendant local authority concluded that the claimant was not a looked after child and, therefore, was not eligible for certain financial allowances. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence showed that the claimant was not a looked after child and that the authority had not sought to sidestep its duties. 

R v Greenhalgh

Road traffic – Careless driving. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a lorry driver who had been convicted of causing the death of an 89 year old man by careless driving. The man had been crossing the road at the time of the collision. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held, amongst other things, that although the judge's direction on the evidence had not been strictly correct, it could not be seen how the defendant's position could have in any way been improved. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence in part and substituted a period of 18 months' disqualifcation from driving for one of 12 months. 

*Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. (in Liquidation) v Sal Oppenhim jr. & cir. KGaA

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. 

Ayoola v St Christopher's Fellowship

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employment tribunal struck out the employee's claim, due to non-compliance with an unless order, and awarded costs against the employee. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal against the costs order on the ground that it had been unclear as to whether the tribunal had exercised any independent scrutiny of the sums claimed by the employer. If it had done so, the judgment had not adequately disclosed its reasoning in that regard. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for rehearing on the question of the amount of the award of costs only. 

GG v YY and another

Practice – Striking out. The claimant solicitor and the second defendant retired solicitor had acted for the first defendant in a boundary dispute. The differences arising from that litigation resulted in further proceedings between the parties. The Queen's Bench Division dealt with their application notices. It held that there was no basis to strike out the claimant's application against the defendants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977. However, the court struck out the witness statements of the defendants and the second defendant's wife as irrelevant, an abuse of the court's process and likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. 

R (on the application of Waryoba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Detention. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings for declaratory relief that the defendant Secretary of State had falsely imprisoned him and damages. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that a reasonable period of detention had not expired by the date upon which the claimant had actually been released. Further, there had not been any period during which it had been or ought to have been apparent to the Secretary of State that she would not be able to effect the claimant's deportation within a reasonable period. The Secretary of State's admitted periods of unlawful detention had been subsumed within an overall reasonable period. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

From Preston to Parliament

Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases