Latest Cases

Practice – Civil litigation. The appellant was a taxi driver who had his vehicle seized by the respondent local authority for non-payment of council tax. The vehicle was returned in due course as it was a 'tool-of-the-trade' for the appellant. The appellant brought a claim for damages for loss of profit due to its retention. The authority brought a counterclaim for storage charges in respect of the vehicle. At trial the judge found that the appellant had failed to comply with the time limit for service of a witness statement and refused relief from sanctions. He also struck out the appellant's case on the pleadings and gave judgment for the local authority on the counterclaim. The appellant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the judge had been correct to refuse relief from sanctions however judgment for the local authority on the counterclaim with regard to the storage of vehicle charges would be overturned. 

Immigration – Deportation. The respondent Secretary of State made a deportation order against the appellant Jamaican national, who was a foreign criminal as defined by s 32(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007. The appellant contended that the decision to make a deportation order had been taken after the order had been signed, such that the relevant 'immigration decision' was unlawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the appellant's argument wrongly confused the decision notice with the actual decision to make the order, which had been taken when an official signed it. The relevant 'immigration decision' was contained in the order itself. Further, where reasons had to be given for a decision, they could be explained after the decision was taken and it was acceptable for that to be done by someone who had knowledge of the reasons, even if not himself the decision-maker. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant mother brought proceedings against the defendant NHS Trust in respect of her child B who was born with chromosomal abnormalities. It was the claimant's contention that the defendant had been in breach of duties to use reasonable care and skill in the management of her pregnancy and had failed to advise her that her baby might be suffering from a chromosomal abnormality. The Queen's Bench Division made an anonymity order in respect of the claimant and B and held that the evidence showed, inter alia, that there was no material risk to which she should have been alerted that B was suffering from a chromosomal abnormality. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of his immigration detention since March 2012. The defendant Secretary of State accepted that she had failed to review the claimant's continued detention between March and July 2013, but contended that the claimant would still have been lawfully detained. The Administrative Court held that, given the claimant's failure to co-operate in establishing his identity, his detention was presently lawful, in accordance with the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983) and his release would not be ordered. Given the Secretary of State's concession, he was only entitled to nominal damages. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company, as buyer, brought a claim for damages fro breach of a warranty in a share, sale and purchase agreement (SPA) against the defendant company, as seller. The defendant contended that the claimants had failed to comply with a contractual notification requirement under the SPA and applied for the claim to be struck out or for summary judgment. The Commercial Court held that a valid claim notice had not been given, in accordance with the SPA and, accordingly, the claim had to fail. 

Damages – Measure of damages. In a personal injury case in which liability and causation were admitted but damages were in issue, the claimant applied for an interim payment in order to purchase a property to adapt for her own living arrangements. The Queen's Bench division allowed a payment under stage one of the judgment of Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] All ER (D) 144 (Mar) reasoning that such a decision would not create an unlevel playing field as between the parties. 

Industrial relations – Collective bargaining. The claimant independent trade union was recognised by the defendant airline as entitled to conduct collective bargaining in respect of the pilots' 'pay, hours and holidays'. The claim concerned the proper construction and scope of the term 'pay, hours and holidays' in the specified method for collective bargaining. The Queen's Bench Division held that only those aspects of rostering that related to the core terms of employment (pay, hours and holidays) and were apt for incorporation as contractual terms fell within the scope of the claimant's recognition. Further, the defendant was required by the specific method to discuss pay with the claimant before varying the employees' contractual terms. The defendant had done so and had complied with its obligations in that regard. 

Employment – Fixed-term contracts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant trade union against a decision of the Court of Session, Inner House, that the employees in question who were on limited term contracts (LTCs) which had not been renewed had not been dismissed 'as redundant' for the purposes of the consultation requirement under s 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992. The Court decided that, contrary to what had been decided by the Inner House, the coming to an end of an LTC was 'for a reason not related to the individual concerned' for the purposes of the definition of redundancy in s 195(1) of the Act. 

Road traffic – Parking place. The claimant challenged the defendant local authority's decisions to increase or change parking charges on the ground that the intended purpose was to help the authority raise additional revenue. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no evidence that raising additional revenue had been the authority's purpose. There was evidence that the authority's purpose had been to address the problems that had come with private vehicle traffic. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered a claim for infringement of European Patent (UK) No 2 292 219 directed to the use of rivastigmine for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease wherein the rivastigmine was administered by a transdermal therapeutic system. The court held that the patent was invalid on the ground of added matter and since the claimed invention lacked an inventive step over a previous patent.