Latest Cases

False imprisonment – Elements of tort. The defendant taxi driver gave the claimant a lift to his home. Believing that the claimant was going to make off without paying, the defendant drove away with the claimant still in the back of the taxi. The claimant leaped out of the taxi and suffered severe injuries. The Queen's Bench Division held that, given the claimant's own negligence, there would be judgment for the claimant for 50% of his damages for the consequences of his injuries. 

Compulsory purchase – Compulsory purchase order. The claimants challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order (CPO). The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the CPO had been confirmed by the Secretary of State on a basis other than that the interested parties had put forward at the inquiry. Further, the decision had to be quashed for the want of evidence to support crucial conclusions as to the reasonable prospect of an acceptable planning permission being granted and implemented, and given the failure to give the claimants a chance to deal with the changed basis of the CPO. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered whether decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) to grant leave to enter to persons who were family members of someone already present in the United Kingdom had been so affected by the overruled reasoning at first instance in MM ([2014] All ER (D) 133 (Jul)) that the appeals should be allowed. The court, in allowing the appeals, held that in each case the FTT had erred in law in its decision in a number of respects. The court gave guidance, among other things, as to the test to be applied to cases falling outside the scope of the new Immigration Rules. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement in respect of a company, DTEK Finance BV, which was incorporated in the Netherlands, where there was a sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction and where, on the evidence, the necessary statutory requirements in s 899(1) of the Companies Act 2006 had been satisfied. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Evropaiki Dynamiki - proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Evropaiki), first, for annulment of the decisions to reject Evropaiki's bids for the call for tenders relating to a framework contract for 'ICT Services' in the field of management technologies and information security and for the call for tenders concerning the Eurosur big pilot project; and secondly, for damages for the harm allegedly sustained as a result of the contracts being awarded to other tenderers. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 193 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax) should be interpreted as meaning that the only person liable to pay the VAT was the taxable person supplying services, where those services had been supplied from a fixed establishment located in the member state in which the VAT was payable. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company owned patents related to telecommunications, many of which were essential to various standards (SEPs), including 2G, 3G and 4G standards. It brought proceedings against the defendants, including Huawei, Samsung and Google, alleging infringement of its patents. The defendants denied infringement of the claimant's patents and contended that the claimant had breached competition law by bringing proceedings and seeking injunctive relief. Huawei applied for summary judgment and/or strike out of the claim on the basis that licensing offers by the claimant were not compliant with its FRAND obligation, as alleged, and that that part of its claim could be struck out. The Patents Court, dismissing the application, held that none of the issues could be decided by summary judgment as to the facts. The claimant had a real prospect of success in defending all the various points arising on the summary judgment application. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision, finding that the various procedural requirements were established for her extradition to the United States to face trial for manufacture, importation and distribution of steroids and human growth hormones, and money laundering offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant's family life, together with that of her daughter, contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, it would not be oppressive, given her mental condition and risk of suicide. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge refused the father's application for direct contact with his two daughters and made an order under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal against the orders. It held, inter alia, that there was nothing in the chronology of the proceedings that would lead the court to criticise the way in which the legal system had handled the case. The orders that the judge had made as to contact and under s 91(14) of the Act had been open to him in accordance with the law and nothing said in argument had persuaded the court that he had erred in proceeding as he had. 

Asbestos dust – Mesothelioma. The widow and sole dependant of CS, the deceased, brought proceedings against the defendant company, which had employed him. She contended that CS had worked with asbestos while employed by the company, which had led to him developing fatal mesothelioma, which had proved fatal. The claimant had established that CS had been exposed to asbestos while in the employment of the company. A total award of £176,779.03 would be made.