Latest Cases

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that art 3(a) and (c) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 469/2009 (concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products) had to be interpreted as meaning that, where a basic patent included a claim to a product comprising an active ingredient which constituted the sole subject-matter of the invention, for which the holder of that patent had already obtained a supplementary protection certificate, as well as a subsequent claim to a product comprising a combination of that active ingredient and another substance, that provision precluded the holder from obtaining a second supplementary protection certificate for that combination. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to two and-a-half years' imprisonment for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in circumstances where he had bitten off a sizeable segment of the victim door supervisor's ear, leaving him permanently disfigured. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division increased the sentence to one of four and-a-half years' imprisonment, holding, among other things, that the judge had imposed a sentence which had fallen unjustifiably outside the range identified by the Sentencing Council. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's withdrawal of its Tier-4 sponsor licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to be suspicious about the robustness of the claimant's compliance with its duty to assess the English language ability of its students. She had also been entitled to conclude that the claimant had posed a serious risk to immigration control. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appeals against extradition orders were heard together because they raised a common issue concerning the new extradition bar contained in s 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the application of s 12A of the Act and quashed the extradition orders against two appellants, as the judicial authorities had not proved that the sole reason for not making the decisions to charge and try them was their absence from the territory. The third appellant's further challenges based on insufficient particulars and dual criminality were rejected. 

Libel and slander – Damages. In a claim for libel the claimant sought damages for defamatory postings in the United Kingdom in relation to his law practice located in the United States. The defendant admitted that the libellous postings had come from his account but denied that he had been the one to post the contents. The Queen's Bench Division held that the likelihood was that in the absence of any convincing explanation to the contrary, the posting from the defendant's account was authored or authorised by him. The postings had caused damage to the claimants and both were therefore was entitled to damages. 

Practice – Parties. In the course of proceedings, the master dismissed the claimant company's application under CPR 19.5 to amend the name of the defendant from OLLP to 'Olswang (a Firm)'. The claimant appealed and the defendant cross-appealed. The Chancery Division, in dismissing both the appeal and the cross-appeal, held that the master had not erred in law, and had not gone outside the ambit of his discretion. 

Family proceedings – Costs. Private law family proceedings were taking place in which the sperm donor father, who was registered on the birth certificate, sought contact with the child after the relationship between him and the two parents had broken down. The child had been born into a relationship between two women. In the proceedings, the child was in receipt of legal aid funding, but none of the adults was. The two women sought a costs allowance to be paid by the father. The Family Division, having considered the circumstances of the parties, ordered that the father pay 80% of the claims of each of the women and 80% of all future professional costs in respect of therapeutic work. The costs of expert evidence were to be paid for by the child, charged to his legal aid certificate. 

Agent – Secret commission. The appellants had taken out a loan arranged by the respondent credit broker. The respondent had received additional commission payments from the loan company and the payment protection insurer. The appellants had issued proceedings alleging that the respondent, in breach of its fiduciary duty owed to them, had received the additional commissions without having informed them either as to the fact of payment or as to the amount. The recorder dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and held that there had been a fiduciary duty owed by the respondent to the appellants and that they had not given their informed consent to the additional commissions. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to make an account of those payments to the appellants. 

Confidential information – Access to confidential information. Following the giving of a judgment confidential to the defendants by the European Commission, a proposition was made for the distribution of the unredacted judgment to a confidentiality club. A number of proposals were made as to the composition of the confidentiality club. The Chancery Division made findings as to the various proposals and allowed the unredacted judgment to be published to the club. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The mother came before the court seeking committal of the father and the paternal grandmother for breaches of court orders ordering the return of a three-year old girl to the jurisdiction of England and Wales where she was habitually resident. The Family Division imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment on the father but found that the paternal grandmother had not been properly served with the contempt proceedings.