Latest Cases

Costs – Orders for costs. It was common ground that, overall, the defendants had been successful in previous proceedings (see[2015] All ER (D) 233 (Apr)) and that the starting point was that they were entitled to their costs. The present proceedings concerned the extent to which a deduction should be made from those costs to reflect issues on which the defendants had been unsuccessful and the amount the claimants should be ordered to pay on account of the defendants' costs. The Patents Court held that, in the circumstances, the claimants would be ordered to pay 75% of the defendants' costs. As to payment on account, a reasonable figure was 55%, that was 55% of 75% of the defendants' total bill. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Yoo Holdings Ltd against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Yoo Holdings Ltd, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'YOO' as a Community trade mark. 

Practice – Summary judgment. Summary judgment was entered for the first defendant, pursuant to CPR 24.2, in respect of the whole of the claimants' claim against the first defendant under s 140A-C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal and upholding the order, held, inter alia, that it could not be that the burden of proof imposed by s 140B(9) of the Act had been intended to mean that, in a case where an unfair relationship was alleged, no summary disposal should ever take place. In the circumstances, it had been fully open to the judge to have found that the test in CPR 24.2 had been satisfied and to have given summary judgment. 

Negligence – Clinical negligence. The claimant, through her mother, brought a case in clinical negligence against the defendants in respect of allegedly negligent examinations of the claimant prior to her developing pneumococcal meningitis combined with other features, which led to sustained irreversible brain damage. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claim against both defendants on the evidence. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to face trial for four offences concerning the possession and supply or attempted supply of cannabis. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the interference with his child's family life outweighed the public interest in appellant's extradition. In particular, given the relative lack of seriousness of the offence with which the appellant was charged and the likely sentence which would be imposed in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, it would be disproportionate, within the meaning of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for the judge's order to stand. 

Environment – Protection. The defendant company pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to regs 38(1)(a) and 39(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, following the discharge of untreated sewage from its pumping station. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in upholding the fine of £250,000 imposed by a recorder, held, among other things, that the court would have had no hesitation in upholding a very substantially higher fine. The court gave guidance on the approach to be adopted under the Sentencing Council's definitive guideline on environmental offences in respect of very large commercial organisations. 

Personal injury – Liability – Breach of statutory duty – Negligence. Sheriff Court: In an action for damages by a prison officer who suffered a neck injury when taking part in a training exercise involving a simulated prison riot, the court concluded that the pursuer had proved on the balance of probabilities that she was injured in the way that she claimed, however she had failed to establish a breach of any of the various health and safety regulations founded upon, and her common law case of negligence also failed. 

Prisoner – Human rights. Sheriff Court: In an action for damages under s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court upheld the pursuer's preliminary plea and granted declarator that the defenders' use of restraint while taking him from prison to attend three hospital appointments in 2013 was incompatible with his rights, under arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and to respect for his private life. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A child, A, was the product of artificial insemination between R and a donor. H and R were in a civil partnership but later separated. A residence order was made in favour of H. H commenced a relationship and cohabited with M, who was a female to male transsexual. It was contended that M and A had developed a father/daughter bond. After M and H separated. M sought to resume his relationship with A and have contact with her. He applied to the court for leave to apply for a child arrangements order. The Family Court refused to give leave on the basis that although M had spent a significant period of time living with A, other factors, including the potentially damaging effect on A's welfare militated against allowing M to proceed with his substantive application. 

Company – Administration order. The Companies Court, in dismissing an application by joint administrators, held that, as a result of art 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 5 and Saving Provisions) Order 2013, conditional fee arrangements were unavailable to the administrators who had been appointed under the special administration regime.