Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a case in which the defendant local authority had moved residents from a care home, the claimants sought summary judgment on the basis that the authority had no realistic prospect of establishing that the actions of its employees were lawful following a consideration of s 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. There was also an application for disclosure. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed both applications. 

National Health Service – Duty to provide healthcare services. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, rejected their contention that the defendant Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to exercise his power to require abortion services to be provided to women from Northern Ireland on the same basis that they were made available to women in England. The court held that the decision had not been irrational, nor had there been a breach of the claimants' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel), ordering that her name be erased from the medical register for failure to disclose information. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Panel had not erred, in particular, there had been nothing wrong with its decision that it had been both necessary and proportionate, in the public interest, to direct that the appellant's name be erased from the medical register. 

Libel and slander – Privilege. In a pre-trial review of the claimant former Member of Parliament's libel action, the Queen's Bench Division refused to lay ground rules as to Parliamentary privilege, to strike out the claim as to the second article and to amend the claimant's costs budget. However, it struck out parts of the claimant's witness statement and case. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal of the defendant Ministry of Defence, rejected its challenges to the judge's factual finding that the claimant would have passed a Junior Command Course in 2009 and become a Corporal as from 31 March 2010 if the defendant had properly protected him on an insertion march in accordance with his medical certification. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Emesa-Trefileria SA and another company (the applicants) for partial annulment of a decision of the European Commission that the applicants and other undertakings had infringed art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by participating in a cartel between prestressing steel suppliers at European, regional and national level. 

County court – Costs. The present appeal concerned, among other things, whether the court had power to order a tenant to pay any costs to the landlord under the terms of the lease where the costs had arisen in related Land Valuation Tribunal (LVT) proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the appellant could not show that the judge had not had power to deal with any costs incurred in the LVT proceedings. The LVT had not dealt with an order for payment of those costs and the respondent landlord could not be estopped from claiming them in the county court because the LVT could not have ordered it its costs under the terms of the lease. 

Patent – Infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of invalidity of a patent by reason of obviousness. The judge had made no error on the material that had been before him. 

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The judge had held that the claimant was entitled to a right of way over land owned by the defendant, relying on the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that: (i) the present court would not be justified in interfering with the judge's finding that the claimant had believed that it had or would have a right of way via the garden access; (ii) the judge's finding that the claimant had believed it had or would have a right of way across the garden because it had been encouraged so to believe by the defendant had been justified; (iii) there had not been any error in the judge's conclusions on detrimental reliance; and (iv) the judge's evaluation of the issue of unconscionable conduct had not been wrong. 

Proceeds of crime – Unlawful conduct. In a case where the respondents applied to discharge a property freezing order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of proceeds of shares belonging to the respondent. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and rejected S's submission that an order for the restoration of the shares to their lawful owner in consequence of the abandonment of forfeiture proceedings in Canada against her, precluded the prosecuting authorities anywhere else in the world from initiating proceedings under their domestic legislation against the proceeds of sale of those shares located within their jurisdiction.