Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. L was 93 and had severe dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Care and safety arrangements had been made for her by her daughters. The Court of Protection considered whether, among other things, the care arrangements for L amounted to a deprivation of her liberty. The court held that, on the evidence, there had been no deprivation of L's liberty. 

Civil procedure – Period of notice in summons. Court of Session: Granting a reclaiming motion in an action in which the pursuers' solicitors had prepared a summons specifying a period of notice of 42 days because the first defender resided in USA and they intended to serve the summons by post but service was not effected by post because the defenders instructed a Scottish firm of solicitors to accept service, and the pursuers subsequently attempted to lodge the summons for calling but on the previous day the defenders enrolled a motion contending that the instance had fallen because the summons had not called within a year and a day after the period of notice expired, the court, disagreeing with the Lord Ordinary, held that the period of notice was 42 days, not 21 days, and accordingly the instance had not fallen and the summons could call. 

Medical practitioner – Professional Conduct Committee. The claimant psychologists were the subjects of allegations which had been referred to the defendant Health and Care Professions Council's Conduct and Competence Committee (the CCC). The Council made further allegations against them, which were also referred. The claimants sought judicial review on the basis that there was no power to refer the further allegations. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that art 22(6) of the Health and Social Work Profession Order 2001, SI 2002/254, fell to be interpreted in such a way as to permit the Council to refer further allegations to its Investigative Committee as a composite entity, in which circumstances, art 26(2) and (5) could be deployed to make a further reference to the CCC. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered whether the respondent, MP, should be allowed to remain as his partner's deputy. The court held that, on the evidence, MP had behaved in a way that had contravened the authority conferred on him. The order revoking his appointment as a deputy would be confirmed, and a panel deputy would be appointed in his place. 

Passing off – Descriptive name. B, who held a single share in the defendant company, Poleplus, registered domain names referring to the claimant company, which manufactured a similar product to that produced by Poleplus. In an earlier judgment, it was held that registration of the domain names had constituted passing off, including the creation of instruments of fraud. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that, on the evidence, Poleplus was jointly liable with B, as it had been vicariously liable for B's acts, and the registrations had been done by B while acting as its agent. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, then aged 17, was convicted of murder and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, with a minimum term of 11 years less 266 days spent on remand. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court held that the offender had made real progress in prison. However, he had not surmounted the high threshold of exceptional progress. Accordingly, it could not be concluded that any reduction of tariff was justified. 

Human Rights – Slavery or servitude, prohibition of. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration and damages for the defendant Secretary of State's alleged breach of art 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by her failure to report to the police that the claimant had been trafficked. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, by reporting the matter to the police, albeit slightly later than she might have done, the Secretary of State had complied with her positive duty to instigate a prompt and effective police investigation. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant had been the long-term partner of the deceased, who was a member of the armed forces. She appealed in respect of a decision that, as she had been still married to her husband, from whom she had separated, she was not eligible for benefits under the armed forces pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the claimant and the deceased had, on the date of his death, been prevented from marrying, within the meaning of the scheme's rules, by virtue of the claimant's subsisting marriage and there had been no unlawful discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Trade mark. The general Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (Royal County), established in the United Kingdom, against a 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 Lifestyle Equities CV and Royal County, concerning the application by Royal County for registration of a figurative sign depicting a polo player and the words: 'Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd' as a Community trade mark. 

Divorce – Appeal. In a divorce and financial contribution case, the husband sought to rely on: (a) a post-nuptial agreement; (b) his special contribution to the assets to regulate the amount payable to his wife of 20 years. The Family Division held that fairness and an overall appraisal of the s 25 factors required, in the case, an equal division of the assets and the final outcome had to achieve that effect.