Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered an application by the Public Guardian, seeking a declaration that DT lacked mental capacity and, if that was granted, an order that his sons be required to provide information as to their management of DT's affair, failing which they would be removed from their position. The court held that, among other things, there was nothing irrational, impracticable or irresponsible in DT's wish that his sons should continue to act as his attorneys. The conduct of the sons had not been sufficiently detrimental to justify making the orders sought, nor had they acted outside the scope of their authority. 

European Union – EU Institutions. The United Kingdom brought an action before the General Court of the European Union for annulment of the Eurosystem Oversight Policy Framework (the Policy Framework) published by the European Central Bank on 5 July 2011, in so far as it set a location requirement applicable to central counterparties (CCPs) established in member states that were not party to the Eurosystem. The General Court allowed the UK's action and annulled the Policy Framework, deciding that the ECB did not have the competence necessary to regulate the activity of securities clearing systems including CCPs. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant had sought judicial review of the lawfulness of his immigration detention. The judge held that his detention throughout the whole of the period from 4 July 2007 to 14 August 2009 had not been unlawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge's conclusion that, for the whole of that period, there was no point at which the defendant Secretary of State had not been entitled to the view that the claimant could be removed within a reasonable time, had been one which was not open to him on the evidence. On the evidence, the claimant's continued detention after November 2008 was unlawful. The claimant's appeal would be allowed to that extent. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Three-N-Products Private Ltd (TPPL) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between TPPL and Munindra Holding BV (Munindra) concerning the application by Munindra for registration of a word sign 'PRANAYUR' as a Community trade mark. 

Copyright – Infringement. The first claimant company, AFD, supplied database services to the defendant, DCML. After some years, AFD recalculated its fees and demanded a much higher sum from DCML. It brought proceedings, seeking to recover that sum. The Chancery Division held that DCML's representative had not misled AFD's representative, and that DCML's defence of estoppel was made out, so that AFD's claim failed. 

Evidence – Foreign tribunal. The claimant faced a number of counts of conspiracy in New York relating to terrorist attacks in the 1990s, in particular, the bombing of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The defendant Secretary of State refused to accede to letters rogatory issued by the New York judge, seeking intelligence material said to be held by the Security Service relating to the claimant on the grounds of national security. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that the Secretary of State's refusal to accede to the letters rogatory had been lawful. 

Nationality – British nationality. The claimant Argentinian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application to be recognised as a British citizen on the basis of his maternal grandfather's British citizenship. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper interpretation of s 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981, the claimant was precluded from claiming entitlement to British citizenship, regardless of any evidence as to whether his mother would hypothetically have registered him in the year after his birth. 

Sunday – Dies non juridicus. The applicant city council applied to strike out the respondent parish council's claim to quash its development plan document. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, as the last day of the six week period for making the claim, under s 113(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, had fallen on a Sunday, the six-week period was to be treated as expiring on the next day when the court office had been open. Accordingly, the claim had been brought within time. 

Tort – Joint tortfeasors. The appellant organisation 'Sea Shepherd UK' (SSUK) was part of an international effort to end the illegal fishing of blue fin tuna. One campaign orchestrated by the American parent organisation had caused damage to the respondent's vessel and released a large quantity of tuna from the nets and cages. The respondent issued proceedings seeking damages and alleged that SSUK had been a joint tortfeasor because it had acted in furtherance of a common design by supplying the vessel which had rammed its own. The judge held that SSUK was not a joint tortfeasor. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the respondent's appeal. The Supreme Court allowed SSUK's appeal and held that the judge had been entitled to find that its contribution to the tort had, on the evidence, been de minimis. 

Employment – Transfer of undertakings. The claimant submitted that her employment had been transferred to a company under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, and that she had been harassed and unfairly dismissed. The employment tribunal held that the company was the claimant's employer and that she had been unfairly constructively dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the company's appeal, held that the tribunal, comprised of a single judge, had had no power to hear the claim relating to harassment on the grounds of religion and it had failed to give clear reasons in respect of its finding that there had been a transfer under TUPE. The case was remitted for a rehearing.