Latest Cases

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection ordered that it was lawful and in the best interests of a female patient detained under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, due to her diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, to undergo a total abdominal hysterectomy in circumstances where she lacked capacity to make that decision for herself. The medical evidence was that surgery was in her best interests and the patient strongly wished to undergo the surgery. 

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. 

Criminal law – Appeal by Crown. The Privy Council allowed the prosecution's appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, quashing the respondent's conviction for possession of an unlicensed firearm. It held that the Court of Appeal's criticisms of the evidence were not justified, as the trial judge had approached the case correctly and there had been no basis for departing from his verdict. 

Criminal evidence – Sexual offence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against his conviction for rape, held that the judge had failed to properly consider admitting evidence that he had had consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant on a previous occasion and text messages from a third party should have been excluded from evidence under the general discretion conferred by s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Elitaliana SpA (Elitaliana) seeking to set aside of the order of the General Court of the European Union, by which the General Court had dismissed its action for: (i) the annulment of measures adopted by the Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (the Mission), established on the basis of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP in the context of the award to another tenderer of the public contract entitled 'EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the Eulex Mission in Kosovo'; and (ii) an order that the Mission should pay compensation for the loss sustained as a result of the failure to award that contract to Elitaliana. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a husband's appeal against a judgment that allowed his ex-wife's application for spousal maintenance to proceed in circumstances where the husband asserted that the matter had already been determined by the courts in Slovenia during the divorce proceedings. The court held that, in circumstances where the wife had withdrawn her application for maintenance in Slovenia, there had been no 'decision by a court' or 'court settlement' for the purposes of art 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 and, therefore, the court in England had jurisdiction to hear her application since she was habitually resident in the jurisdiction. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by the United Kingdom for annulment of art 29 of, and Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (the contested provisions). The Court decided that the contested provisions merely provided for an alignment of the rail freight corridor in question and therefore did not cover the concept of 'project of common interest' within the meaning of art 171(1) TFEU and the second paragraph of art 172 TFEU. Consequently, the first condition, concerning the existence of a project of common interest, laid down in the second paragraph of art 172 TFEU was not fulfilled. 

Passing off – Get-up of goods. The Chancery Division considered claims for passing off and trade mark infringement against the first defendant company, IPAL, which charged large sums to users of its services for submitting renewal applications for trade marks and patents. The court held that both passing off and trade mark infringement were made out, and that the second defendant, who owned IPAL, was jointly liable with it. 

Sentencing – Order for lifelong restriction (OLR). High Court of Justiciary: Allowing appeals by two prisoners against OLRs imposed on them in respect of an assault on another prisoner, the court held that there was no sufficient link between the offence and the risk the appellants posed, the risk criteria were not satisfied and the statutory test for the imposition of an OLR was not met: it accordingly quashed the OLRs and substituted extended sentences. 

Heritable property – Landlord and tenant – Right of severance of fixtures which had acceded to heritable estate. Court of Session: In a dispute as to the ownership of a chalet, the heritable proprietor of an estate having granted a lease of a portion of the estate, including the solum on which the chalet was subsequently built, and the defender being the assignee of a right of property in the chalet, it being agreed that the chalet had acceded to the heritable property owned by the pursuer by operation of law, the court held that the defender had a right of severance of the chalet and repelled the pursuer's pleas in law seeking declarator that she was the heritable proprietor of it and interdict against the defender from dismantling or removing it.