Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant directors of Lloyds TSB plc's application for summary judgment on a claim brought by the claimant shareholders, alleging breach of fiduciary and tortious duties concerning Lloyds' acquisition of Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) in 2009, by failing to disclose that HBOS had been manipulating its London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Where disclosure had not yet taken place, the court could not say with confidence at the present stage that the claimant's case would turn out at trial to be without substance. 

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. 

Mortgage – Sale. The Chancery Division dismissed an application for an order to stop the sale of a property pursuant to a contract that was entered into as a result of an auction. There was no arguable basis upon which the sale of the property which was due to take place should be interfered with. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection made an order revoking the appointment of the patient's two children and appointing a person from a solicitors' firm to be the patient's deputy for property and affairs. The revocation was made on the basis that the children were not fulfilling their duties having regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Code of Practice. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a wife's application for the committal to prison of her husband for failure to comply with two specific disclosure orders in ancillary relief proceedings. The orders had been validly served by email as ordered by the court and the application notice had been served by the same method. The judge dispensed with the need for personal service and concluded that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband had not only failed to comply, but had been defiant in his refusal. The sentence was backed by a request for a European arrest warrant. 

Drugs – Drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the opening words of s 79(2) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, should be interpreted as if they read 'where, before or after a period of imprisonment or other detention has been imposed'. 

Sale of goods – Motor car. The Commercial Court considered, as a preliminary issue, challenges to the ownership of the chassis and spare parts of an extremely rare Ferrari car. It dismissed the objections raised by the first and second defendants, and held that, at the relevant time, the fourth defendant had had title to the car, including the spare parts. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made an order regarding the jurisdiction of a possible future secure accommodation order regarding P, who was just over 16 years old and had a history of self-harm and attempted suicide. The court held that the applicant local authority's application for a secure accommodation order would be adjourned generally with liberty to restore should circumstances arise in which it considered it appropriate to do so.