Latest Cases

Patent – Infringement. The claimant had applied for declarations of non-infringement regarding the defendant's patent for a cancer treatment drug. The declarations were granted by a judge who found that there was no infringement of the defendant's patent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal on the ground that the judge had erred in assuming that the claim had extended only to the solid form of the drug and not to the drug when in solution. Consequently, there was indirect infringement of the patent and the declaration of non-infringement would be set aside. 

Personal injury – Health and safety – Liability. Court of Session: Granting decree of absolvitor in an action by a shop assistant who was injured when she fell off a footstool she was using to hang clothing up on racks in the defenders' shop, the court held that it had not been shown that the accident happened as a result of any use of the stool in breach of the employer's duties. 

Receiver – Appointed by court. The applicant receiver applied for payment of all legal costs and remuneration. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that a contention that the receiver, as trustee, had failed to bring property into the receivership account could not be advanced in an application for a general account, without having also raised an allegation of wilful default, negligence or other breach of duty for which the receiver had been liable to compensate the intervener beneficiaries. Further, a prior order had not acted to prevent the receiver claiming disbursements from gross receipts that he should have provided in the costs proceedings. 

Adoption – Order. The applicant family members sought to remove two children to the United States of America where they hoped to adopt them. The Family Division held that the applicants were unable to bring themselves within s 84 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for the purposes of obtaining parental responsibility and removing the children from the United Kingdom, as they did not and had never had a home in the UK. 

Arbitration – Commencement. The buyer appealed against an arbitration award as to the price of cotton. The Commercial Court held that the award would be upheld in relation to the first issue. On the second issue, the court held that the issue of law as to which permission to appeal had been given only answered a part of the question as to what had been the applicable price it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the Tactical Appeal Committee. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority applied for a care order in respect of a young child, N, as a result of his attendance at hospital following his collapse. There was radiological evidence of possible hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. The Family Court held that, on the evidence, N's injuries had resulted from an innocent, but ill-advised, resuscitative shake by his mother. However, in the circumstances, the threshold criteria of s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 were not satisfied and, therefore, the application for a care order would be dismissed, with the consequence that N would return to the care of his mother and father. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Silicium España Laboratorios, SL, (Silicium) against the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between LLR-G5 Ltd and Silicium concerning the application by LLR-G5 Ltd for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the transfer to Silicium of the registration of the word sign 'LLRG5' which had been registered as a Community trade mark. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In deciding that the child should go to live with the mother in France rather than in the United Kingdom, the Family Divison found that having regard to the welfare checklist, it was in the child's interests to live in France. Contact with the father could be maintained and the impact of her application being refused was likely to have a profound impact on the mother. 

Insolvency – Practice. A company applied for an injunction to restrain a creditor (CV) from presenting a winding-up petition on the basis that the debt claimed by CV in a statutory demand was disputed on substantial grounds and that the petition would amount to an abuse of process. The Companies Court, in dismissing the application, held that the company had been unable to demonstrate a genuine dispute on substantial grounds as regards CV's claim for unpaid retainer fees of US$600,000. On the facts, it would not be an abuse of process for CV to present a petition to wind-up the company based on that debt. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant brothers had been refused indefinite leave to remain, and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed their appeal, finding that there was no family life between them and their mother, although she also had indefinite leave to remain, as she appeared to spend most of her time in India. Further, as adults, they had not demonstrated a relationship of dependence over and above the usual emotional ties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal. The tribunal's findings on the issue of proportionality had not been flawed and no reasonable tribunal, on the facts as found, could properly have come to a different conclusion.