Latest Cases

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant, slipped on a wet pavement and hurt her leg/knee. She brought a claim for damages in negligence against the defendant, who was her General Practitioner, for negligent examination of the knee. It was said that there were two consequences flowing from the breach of duty and consequent delay in diagnosing this fracture. The first was increased knee pain and loss of mobility and the second was low back pain arising out of the fact that the claimant had to use a stick for walking. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim and made an award based on appropriate guidelines. 

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. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The respondent, a Jamaican national, came to the United Kingdom and claimed asylum on the grounds of his risk of persecution in Jamaica due to the fact that he was a homosexual. He was detained pending a decision on removal, under a fast-tracking procedure, as Jamaica was on a list of states designated under s 94(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to include Jamaica in the designated list. A deputy judge dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that, on its true construction, s 94(5) of the Act referred to countries, or parts of countries, where its citizens were free from any serious risk of systematic persecution, either by the state itself or by non-state agents which the state was unable or unwilling to control. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The present appeals concerned the systematic collection and retention by police authorities of electronic data about individuals. The Supreme Court, in allowing the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeals, held that there had been no disproportionate interference with the respondents' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Retention of material concerning the first respondent was justified by the legitimate requirements of police intelligence gathering and, as to the second respondent, the retention policy had been flexible enough to allow for information to be deleted when retaining it would no longer serve any useful policing purpose. 

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. 

Practice – Hearing. The defendant Secretary of State filed a statement of reasons in which she asserted that all of the conditions specified in s 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 for the making of a declaration permitting closed material applications were met. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, as the function of the court was a step removed from any proceedings which could properly be characterised as a criminal cause or matter, all of the statutory criteria in s 6 of the Act for the making of such a declaration had been met. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by FSA Srl (FSA) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between Motokit Veículos e Acessórios, SA, and FSA, concerning the application by FSA for registration of a word sign 'FSA K-FORCE' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the prosecution's appeal against a terminating ruling, pursuant to the provisions of s 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in circumstances where the judge had ruled that due to delay on the part of the prosecution, evidence of telephone call data records and telephone cell site data would be excluded pursuant to the provisions of s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The court provided guidance and ruled that, in the circumstances, the judge had been fully entitled to reach the conclusion that he had. 

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.