Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The defendant brought a claim for negligence, alleging that he had been rendered effectively blind as a result of negligent treatment received at the defendant NHS Trust's eye centre. The Queen's Bench Division ruled that the claim could not succeed where, notwithstanding that another expert might have taken a different course, the course adopted by defendant Trust's staff had been one which would have been taken by a responsible body of ophthalmological opinion. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant parents damages of £10,000 each, in circumstances where, while the initial removal of their children from their home had been lawful, and a proportionate and necessary response to the need to safeguard them from harm, the actions of the defendant local authority in retaining the children away from their parents after the expiry of a police protection order had been unlawful and, therefore, the interference with the parents' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had also been unlawful. 

Adoption – Practice. The present proceedings arose out of the adoption of a child who had been born to the claimant. The Family Division, in dismissing the claimant's claims for certain declarations under the Human Rights Act 1998, held, among other things, that the making of an adoption order always brought pre-existing rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as between a birth parent and an adopted child to an end. Those rights had arisen from, and co-existed with, the parent-child relationship, which was extinguished by adoption. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division granted the husband permission to appeal from an order made in financial remedy proceedings arising out of the parties' divorce, on the ground that an event within Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening) ([1987] 2 All ER 440) (Barder) might subsequently have occurred and the conditions in Barder were or might be satisfied. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 5(3) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 261/2004 had to be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which had occurred unexpectedly, which was not attributable to poor maintenance and which had also not been detected during routine maintenance checks, did not fall within the definition of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that provision. 

Civil procedure – Decree by default – Reduction of decree. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought reduction of a decree by default of the Court of Session, pronounced in January 2009, reducing a disposition granted in their favour, the court held that having regard to what the pursuers offered to prove it could not be said that they would be bound to fail at proof and it therefore repelled the defender's plea to the relevancy and to dismiss the action and allowed a proof before answer. 

Practice – Judgments and orders. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ruled that, while it had jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier judgment on a claim for copyright infringement, the claimant was not entitled to such a reconsideration in circumstances where it could not be shown that information, which the claimant sought to rely on in applying for reconsideration, could not have been obtained without reasonable diligence for use at the trial. 

Judicial review – Assisted suicide – Human rights. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a petitioner who sought declarator that the Lord Advocate was in breach of the right to respect for private and family life in failing to promulgate a policy identifying the facts and circumstances he would take into account in deciding whether to prosecute a person who helped another to commit suicide, the court was satisfied that the respondent's policy in relation to prosecution for homicide where the circumstances involved assisted suicide did not lack the requisite accessibility or foreseeability, nor was it arbitrary, and it was therefore 'in accordance with the law'. 

European Union – Community trade mark. The Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to the extent that it upheld an appeal by a bank, which had opposed the registration of the applicant's trade mark on the basis of an earlier mark, in respect of real estate services covered by the applicant's trade mark. There was no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue in respect of the real estate services covered by the Community trade mark application. 

Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The Central London County Court dismissed the claimant lender's claim for damages for professional negligence against the defendant valuer on the ground that, among other things, it was statute-barred.