Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Publications concerning legal proceedings. The Divisional Court held that the defendant, Condé Nast, had been in contempt of court. Its publication of an article in GQ in the course of the phone-hacking trial had created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the trial would be seriously prejudiced or impeded. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal regarding dismissal of their application for declarations regarding the ownership of copyright in the music and lyrics of certain Bob Marley songs. On the true construction of an agreement which pre-dated the claimants' purported acquisition of copyright, a group of companies, of which the defendant company was a member, was the copyright owner of those works and there had been no error of law in the judge's interpretation of that agreement. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 26 of Directive (EC) 2004/18 had to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which required tenderers and their sub-contractors to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who were called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Supreme Court held, among other things, that the rule requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in the United Kingdom to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live in the UK was not an unjustified interference with rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Limitation of actions – Prescription. Court of Session: Granting decree of absolvitor in an action in which a company in liquidation sued a firm of solicitors for damages for loss caused by facilitation of fraud, averring that it had instructed the defenders to act in relation to proposed loans to four Gibraltar companies and that £7.3m had been paid out of the defenders' client account to third parties and not to the four companies, the court rejected the defenders' contention that the pursuer had failed relevantly to aver circumstances in which it had sustained any loss as a consequence of anything they had done, but held that the pursuer had failed to aver and prove circumstances entitling it to protection from prescription under s 6(4) or s 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. 

Income tax – Emoluments – Tax avoidance scheme. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal by the Advocate General, representing HM Revenue and Customs, the court held that a scheme the respondent companies had entered into, involving payments to various trusts and application of the monies so paid, which was designed to avoid payment of income tax and National Insurance contributions in respect of their employees, amounted to a mere redirection of earnings which did not remove the liability of employees to income tax. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was not entitled to compensation under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights despite the decision of the Court of Appeal Civil Division that the trial judge's decision to committ and sentence to prison for contempt of court had been wrong. 

Medical treatment – Adult patient. The Queen's Bench Division declared that there had been a procedural breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the defendant NHS Trust in respect of the placing of a 'do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' notice on the deceased's medical record, which subsisted for nine to ten hours, without any consultation with a person who had been caring for or representing his interests. 

Child – Care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the claimant in respect of her claim against the defendant local authority regarding the physical and sexual abuse she had suffered while in foster care provided by the authority during the period 1985 to 1988. The court held that, in such circumstances, the authority was not vicariously liable for the assaults nor had it been under a non-delegable duty of care to have protected her from harm. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division in a balancing exercise between arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights granted the local authority the reporting restriction orders in order to protect the privacy of the child.