Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In claims by many hundreds of Iraqi civilians against the defendant Ministry of Defence for damages for their allegedly unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces, the preliminary issue was whether in respect of the claims in tort the law of Iraq provided for joint liability and/or vicarious liability of the defendant for acts alleged to have been done by members of the US forces. The Queen's Bench Division gave a ruling based on the evidence submitted. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The first defendant granted the second defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner four warrants, under s 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, concerning the claimants' office and homes. The claimants sought judicial review. The Divisional Court held that it had not been feasible to provide greater specificity and it had been unrealistic to expect the officers to have taken away any relevant material for a computer or other storage device in paper form or on memory sticks. Further, it was permissible to order the seizure of electronic storage devices or their contents in the circumstances without resort to other statutory provisions. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant Iranian national made an unsuccessful claim for asylum. The First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) dismissed his appeal. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the FTT had erred in failing to take into account, in the proportionality assessment under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the respondent Secretary of State's policy on removals to Iran. Further, if he was not granted discretionary leave to remain, he would be left in limbo. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that, having considered the policy, even if the appellant's argument had been advanced before the FTT, there would have been no proper basis for a finding that the refusal of leave would have put him into a state of limbo. Consideration of whether he would have been in a state of limbo would have drawn the FTT into impermissible speculation about the future. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The appellant Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the UT), holding that the respondent had been identified in notices given by the FCA to a firm. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set out the correct approach to the issue of identification for the purposes of s 393 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It then held that the UT had been wrong in its articulation of the relevant tests, but had reached the correct conclusion that the 'matters' in the notices had identified the respondent. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employee was employed as a nurse, and was absent from work over an extended period, due to stress. Her employment was terminated, and she brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The employee appealed, contending that, among other things, the tribunal had failed to consider the likelihood of her condition reoccurring. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that that matter should have been raised before the tribunal, once the omission had initially been realised, and that an appeal was unnecessary. The matter was referred back to the tribunal. The EAT gave guidance on the correct procedure in such circumstances and on its own jurisdiction to entertain appeals from 'decisions' of employment tribunals. 

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's complaints of, among other things, unfair dismissal. However, it decided that the employer had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments in respect of the employee's disability. The employee appealed on the ground that, having made that finding, the employer ought to have considered whether the employer had discriminated against her under s 39(2)(c) and 7(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The employer appealed on the basis that the tribunal had failed to make proper findings as to whether the adjustments sought by the employee had in fact been reasonable. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed both appeals and remitted the matter to the same tribunal for consideration. 

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned an agreement relating to the proposed redevelopment of the site of the embassy of the United States of America in Grosvenor Square. In determining the claimant, Chelsfield's, applications for summary judgment, the Chancery Division considered, among other things, whether the first defendant, QDDC, had a real prospect of success in establishing that the continuation of the agreement between the parties had to be dependant on the continued existence of a relationship of trust and confidence between them. The court allowed Chelsfield's application for summary judgment in respect of its claim for a declaration that the agreement remained in existence and had not been determined. It dismissed Chelsfield's application for summary judgment in respect of its claim for an order, among other things, requiring QDDC to instruct an expert to complete his determination of the terms of a subsidiary agreement. 

Tort – Cause of action. A famous concert pianist, author and television film-maker (J) sought to publish a book about his life, which included details of the abuse he had suffered as a child. His ex-wife sought to prevent the release of the book on the ground that it would cause their young son psychological harm. A High Court judge dismissed an application on behalf of the child for an interim injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claim alleging that the release of the book would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm to the son should go for trial (Wilkinson v Downton [1895-9] All ER Rep 267) and it granted an interim injunction restricting its publication in a certain form. The Supreme Court, allowing J's appeal, considered the proper approach to the tort of intentionally causing physical or psychological harm in modern law and held that the publication of the book was not within the scope of the conduct element of the tort of wilful infringement of the right to personal safety. There was no basis for supposing that J had had an actual intention to cause psychiatric harm or severe mental or emotional distress to his son. Taking all factors into account, the only proper conclusion was that there was every justification for the publication. 

Trade mark – Registration. The applicant's application for registration of two trade marks had been rejected under s 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as lacking distinctiveness. The Chancery Division dismissed the appeal. The hearing officer had not applied the wrong test, his findings had not been inconsistent with his findings regarding descriptiveness under s 3(1)(b) and he had clearly set out his reasons for having found that the applicant's evidence had not demonstrated the kind of use that would have caused the marks to acquire distinctiveness. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Swatch AG against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Swatch AG and Panavision Europe Ltd (PEL) concerning the application by PEL for registration of the word mark 'SWATCHBALL' as a Community trade mark.