Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered applications for contact by the parents of R, who were separated. R's mother wished to go to work in Hong Kong and to take R with her. The court held that, on the evidence, the mother would let R's opportunities for continuing and developing his relationship with the father wither. The mother's application was dismissed and the father's application for extended contact allowed. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Medical Council in her absence, finding misconduct and deciding to erase her from the register. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal held that the FPP ought to have decided to proceed to hear the witnesses, but only to decide the facts and to seek to notify the appellant, with a view to her attending on the issue of dishonesty. It should have considered, before imposing any sanction whether attempts should have been made to contact the appellant to enable her to put forward any mitigation. 

Tax – Alcohol. The defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners revoked the claimants' authorisation to trade in duty-suspended goods. The claimants sought interim injunctive relief within prospective judicial review proceedings, pending their appeal in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimants' challenge did not enjoy a realistic chance of success, particularly given the high threshold set where an appeal was available. Accordingly, interim relief and permission to apply for judicial review would be refused. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Commercial Court. The Commercial Court considered the claimants' particulars of claim, which ran to 96 pages. The court held that, owing to the length and content of the particulars, they would be struck out, the costs of drafting them would be disallowed and fresh particulars would be drawn up complying with Appendix 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Commercial Court Guide (the Guide). The court stressed the importance of the making of adverse costs orders in cases of flagrant non-compliance with the recommendations of the Guide. 

Costs – Protective costs order. The Secretary of State appealed against the judge's order that the second claimant local planning authority was entitled to costs protection under CPR 45.41 and Practice Direction 45.5.1 (PD 45.5.1). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the Secretary of State's cross-appeal, held, inter alia, that it would not be right to infer a limitation excluding public authorities, as defined in the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done (the Aarhus Convention), from those claimants who could benefit from costs protection under PD 45.5.1(b) in an Aarhus Convention case. 

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. 

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.