Latest Cases

Patent – Practice. The Patents Court struck out the applicant company's application to amend one of the claims of a patent following a trial at which it had been unsuccessful. The court held that the application to amend was an abuse of process, because it could and should have been made prior to trial. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that the patient had capacity to determine her own medical treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The consequence of that decision was that M would die. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal. The original decision to refuse the appellant an EEA residence card had been made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI 2006/1003. No one stop notice had been served under s 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Therefore, the appellant had not been entitled to raise asylum and human rights grounds on appeal, and had been constrained to appealing the original decision under the Regulations. 

Bank – Account. The Chancery Division held that a banking arrangement to temporarily hold mortgage payments had not put the claimant mortgagor into arrears for those payments. Consequently, the defendant bank was wrong to have circulated adverse credit information relating to those payments. By deeming the unpaid instalments as arrears, the bank had also wrongly double-charged the claimant for interest payments. The bank had been successful in enforcing a claim for money which had been guaranteed by the claimant. 

Local authority – Transport. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal by the claimant local authority against the award of an arbitrator on preliminary questions regarding the vesting of certain highway property in the respondent Transport for London. It made rulings on the meaning of 'highway' in the circumstances, and the extent of the horizontal and vertical planes covered by the freehold. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The Administrative Court previously found the second defendant Secretary of State in breach of public law duty to provide systems and resources the claimant prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection needed to demonstrate that detention was no longer necessary for public protection. As the first and second claimants had completed the healthy sex programme course and the second claimant would be provided with it in April to June 2016, it was no longer necessary to make a mandatory order. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (REM) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market relating to invalidity proceedings between Nedschroef Holding BV and REM, concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'TRILOBULAR' as a Community trade mark. 

Company – Take-over bid. The Supreme Court, an allowing the appellants' appeal, held that the proper purpose rule in s 171(b) of the Companies Act 2006 applied to the respondent company's decision to issue notices restricting the rights attaching to their shares under the company's articles. Having determined the proper purposes of the relevant article, it found that the company had acted for an improper purpose. 

Guarantee – Solicitor. The Chancery Division considered a construction dispute in which the defendant solicitors' firm had admitted breach of duty. The court considered that, although the claimants were entitled to judgment, causation had not been made out, and accordingly they were entitled only to nominal damages. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant building contractor's appeal against the dismissal of its claim for injunctive and declaratory relief to restrain the defendant employers from proceeding with an adjudication to determine the sum properly due to the claimant, following termination of the contract. The judge had not erred in his construction of para 9(2) of Pt 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. The defendants were entitled to proceed to adjudication in order to determine the correct value of the claims and counterclaims.