Latest Cases

The respondent issued proceedings for negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty for damage suffered in an explosion at the appellants' factory. The judge found in favour of the appellants, but the Inner House of Court of Session reversed that decision and the appellants appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that s 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was to be read as if it said 'the creditor was not aware … that loss, injury or damage, which had been caused as aforesaid, had occurred'. Accordingly, any obligation the appellants had owed to make reparation to the respondent had prescribed before the proceedings had begun. 

Practice – Claim form. The claimant's race discrimination claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the service of a claim form by the court, in disregard of a claimant's notification that he wished to effect service himself, could constitute 'an error of procedure' within the meaning of CPR 3.10, which the court could rectify using it's general case management power. 

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. 

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. 

Design – Design right. The claimant brought proceedings against his brother, the first defendant, and the second defendant for infringement of a United Kingdom registered design and of UK unregistered design rights in respect of a contact lens cleaning device. A judge had found that the unregistered design rights relied on by the claimant had been infringed by sales by the second defendant of two products and he ordered an account in relation to the sales of one product. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, having considered the relevant profit made by the first claimant from the sale of the product, held that he was liable to pay the claimant the sum of £15,800. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Chinese national's application for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) student was refused because he failed to provide a bank statement from 24 August 2012 and only provided the statement from 28/29 August. He issued judicial review proceedings, contending that para 245AA of the Immigration Rules applied because one bank statement 'from a series' had been omitted. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that something could not be 'missing' from a sequence until the sequence itself existed, which meant that at least the start and end of the sequence had to be in evidence. As the statement constituting or evidencing the start of the sequence had been missing, para 245AA of the Immigration Rules had not been engaged. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, in a decision in relation to the capacity of a young adult Z, on the autistic spectrum with a diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome, found that the evidence before the court by a margin was that Z was able to 'use or weigh' information as required by s 3(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 about risk to herself, and her ability to keep herself safe in independent living, and in her social contacts. 

Passing off – Get-up of goods. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's claim for passing off in respect its clinical wet wipes for use in the healthcare industry where, applying settled law to the facts, the claimant had failed to establish its case. There was no risk of deception amongst a sufficiently substantial number of the claimant's customers or potential customers for there to be a real effect on its goodwill. Further, the defendant's products did not amount to instruments of deception. 

Solicitor – Retainer. The Chancery Division considered the enforceability of a contract between the claimant company, Garnat, and its solicitors, TC. The court held that the retainer between the parties, as amended by an agreement made whilst representing Garnat in an appeal, was partly unenforceable. The unenforceable provisions could be severed. It followed that TC was entitled to charge Garnat for any work falling within the scope of the retainer, excluding the appeal.