Latest Cases

Damages – Personal injury. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendants' appeal, held that the judge had erred in concluding that the cost of all of the claimant's care and physiotherapy needs should be met by the defendants as their negligence had made the claimant's position materially and significantly worse. The same applied to his decision in relation to accommodation, equipment, transport and holidays. The case was remitted to the judge for him to assess damages in respect of the claimant's heads of loss in the light of the court's judgment. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division considered the validity of two claims in a patent dispute concerning a technique to prevent the corrosion of rebars used in reinforced concrete. The court held that claim 1 of the patent, which described a method, was valid but not infringed. However, claim 12 of the patent, which described a product suitable for use in the technique, was invalid. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Confidential documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed appeals against case management and other orders in proceedings brought by 565 claimant companies against British Airways arising out of an alleged unlawful cartel. It held that the unredacted version of a European Commission decision should not be disclosed to members of a confidentiality ring and economic tort claims should be struck out, as the judge had erred in his approach to the issue of intent. 

Sentencing – Sexual Offences Act 2003 – Notification requirements. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who pled guilty to an offence of threatening or abusive behaviour involving obtaining clandestine access to an intimate photograph on the complainer's mobile showing her naked private parts and transmitting it electronically to a third party, the court held that the sheriff was entitled to find that there was a 'significant sexual aspect' to the offence, which meant that the appellant became subject to the notification requirements in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered a patent relating to the use of anti-PD-1 antibodies in the treatment of cancer. The court rejected a number of objections to the validity of the patent, including lack of novelty, obviousness and entitlement to the first priority date. 

Carriage by air – Jurisdiction – Breach of contract – Denied boarding. Sheriff Court: In an action in which the pursuers averred that on the return trip from a holiday in Sicily they were denied boarding to their pre-booked return flight by the defender, their carrier, and had required to pay for alternative carrier to return them to UK, the court concluded that it was seized of jurisdiction, that the pursuers had failed to prove that it was the defender that caused the damage claimed by breach of contract, but that they were entitled to compensation and reimbursement in terms of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 for having been 'denied boarding' against their will by the defender. 

Company – Sole shareholder and director – Personal liability for actions of company. Court of Session: In a case in which the pursuer advanced claims against a company (the fourth defender) and its sole director and shareholder (the third defender) in respect of alleged infringements of trademarks, following a debate on the question of whether the third defender was properly convened as a party to the action on the basis that he was personally liable for the actions of the fourth defender, the court held that the action in so far as directed against the third defender was irrelevant and should be dismissed. 

Practice – Statement of claim. The Technology and Construction Court granted the claimant company's application, at a pre-trial review, to amend its particulars of claim for fees said to be due under contract, and its reply and defence to the defendant company's counterclaim. The court further granted the defendant's application to amend its pleadings after matters had come to light in the disclosure exercise. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court made no order for costs on applications by both the claimant company and the defendant company to amend their respective pleadings, which had been allowed in earlier proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear their own cost in circumstances where each party had opposed the other's application to amend their pleadings. 

Personal injury – Provisional damages – Tender and acceptance. Court of Session: In a personal injury action by a pursuer who had developed pleural plaques as a result of his exposure to asbestos, in which the pursuer accepted the defenders' tender of £7,000 provisional damages and enrolled a motion for decree in terms of the minute of tender and minute of acceptance, the court concluded that it should pronounce decree in terms of those minutes and make an order that the pursuer could apply for further damages if he developed either mesothelioma or bronchial carcinoma, rather than the wider order he sought reserving to him the right to apply for further award of damages if he developed 'an asbestos-related condition other than pleural plaques'.