Latest Cases

Copyright – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held that the defendants were jointly liable for infringing the claimant's copyright in its 'Red Berry design' by the importation into the United Kingdom of Blossom ceramics and the sale of those products. The claimant was entitled to damages and interest. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The applicant Irish nationals were arrested on suspicion of involvement in murder in Northern Ireland, under s 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and their detention was repeatedly extended. They complained of breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that there was no breach of art 5(3) of the Convention. The applicants had been brought promptly before a judicial officer who had had adequate jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of their detention and the power to order their release. Further, it had not been necessary that any consideration be given to their conditional release. 

Solicitor – Law Society. The claimant Law Society carried out an investigation into the practice of the first defendant solicitor, E, and a company of which he was a director. It held that there should be an intervention regarding E and his practice. E applied for the intervention to be lifted. The Chancery Division dismissed the application, holding that the risks attached to withdrawing the evidence outweighed the risks of continuing it. 

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant, a British citizen, brought a claim for personal injuries in respect of an accident that occurred whilst working in Antwerp. The claim against the first defendant employer was brought in breach of statutory duty and negligence. The fourth and fifth defendants were the main contractors responsible for the project and comprising a joint venture under Belgian law. Those defendants were domiciled in Belgium (the Belgian defendants). The Belgian defendants sought a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction over them in relation to the claim The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim on the basis of Regulation 44/2001. 

Elections – Local government. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against sentence for making a false statement as to his qualification to be elected as a candidate in the Enfield Borough Council elections, contrary to s 65A(1A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and rejected his contention that insufficient weight had been given to his mental health when sentencing. 

Children and young persons – Court proceedings. The mother removed the child of the parties' relationship from Texas where she had been living to the United Kingdom, without the father's permission. The father commenced proceedings under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Family Division held that the child's removal from the State of Texas was unlawful. There was no sustainable basis on the evidence for establishing either, or indeed any, of the exceptions in the Convention to a mandatory return. 

Land – Owner. The parties, who were five brothers, owned a number of properties and businesses. A dispute arose as to the ownership of the property and businesses. The Chancery Division held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimant brothers' submission that the family had agreed to work together in business and build up assets in common, rather than the defendant brother's contention that each property and business was beneficially owned by the brother who was its registered owner. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Petropars Iran Co and other companies for annulment of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as those acts concerned them. 

Reparation – Personal injury – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuer sought damages for injuries he sustained when snow, ice and guttering fell from a roof and struck him, averring that the defenders inspected the property and removed ice and snow from the roof but failed to remove ice from the guttering, the court held that the first defenders were not performing any statutory duty to which it might have been easy to attach a common law duty, they were acting under statutory powers only, neither defender caused the problem, nor had they made it worse, and there was no proximity or assumption of responsibility. 

Consumer credit – Agreement. The claimant brought mortgage possession proceedings against the defendant, pursuant to the terms of a written loan facility agreement. A money judgment was given for the claimant. The defendant appealed, contending that the judge had erred in law in enforcing the contractual liability by a money judgment, because the facility was a regulated agreement under s 8(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and, since its form and content were not as prescribed by the Act and regulations made thereunder, it could only be enforced by an enforcement order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal. It rejected the claimant's submission that the defendant was estopped by her declaration in the facility from denying that the agreement had been unregulated and, in the circumstances, there was no injustice in permitting the defendant to take that point of law for the first time on appeal.