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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The issue for determination was whether the judge had erred in admitting an Interpol 'red notice', which was not duly authenticated under the Extradition Act 2003. The Divisional Court held that the correct test was whether a document, not authenticated under s 202(3) of the Act, was admissible as evidence of the facts stated in it according to the English rules of criminal evidence. It allowed the appellant's appeal against the judge's decision to send his case to the Secretary of State, as the red notice had been inadmissible and it could not be proved that the appellant was the requested person. 

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. 

European Union – Finance. The Court of Justice of the European union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of various provisions of Directive (EC) 94/19 (on deposit-guarantee schemes), as amended by Directive (EC) 2009/14, and of Directive (EC) 97/9 (on investor-compensation schemes). The request had been made in proceedings brought by 'Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas' VĮ and Mr Nemaniunas concerning the validity of an agreement for the acquisition of a certificate of deposit and a number of bond subscription agreements. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. In the first case in which the reach of s 26(5) of the Extradition Act 2003 was considered, the Divisional Court gave guidance on its application. It then held that the applicant's appeal against his extradition to Hungary to serve 30 months' imprisonment was out of time. There had been no satisfactory explanation for the week's delay following the drafting of the notice of appeal and the delay had demonstrated that the applicant had not done everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice had been lodged with the court as soon as it could have been. 

Adoption – Practice. In circumstances where the child's paternal family sought leave to challenge an adoption order under s 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 200, the Family Court held that as the court had to have regard to the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child could develop, there were strong welfare reasons for granting the father leave to oppose the adoption application. 

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. 

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. 

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.