Latest Cases

Local authority – Statutory powers. The local authority applied for a secure accommodation in respect of SS who was being keep in a secure unit. The Family Division noted that the restriction of liberty of a child was an extremely serious step, especially where the child had not committed any criminal offence, nor was alleged to have committed any criminal offence and the circumstances of SS's case did not warrant such an order. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother and the father met through a website CoParentMatch.com, the mother was gay. The parties eventually conceived a child. Contact became a problem and the matter came before the court. The father sought a Parental Responsibility Order. The Family Division made the PRO on the basis that there were key features which pointed compellingly to the making of the order. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee brought proceedings against the employer, alleging, among other things, constructive dismissal and racial and age-related harassment. She raised an issue about compliance with statutory grievance procedure for the first time at the start of the substantive hearing. The employment tribunal allowed the point to be taken. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the point had been arguable. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to face trial for a joint enterprise offence of organising the transportation of prostitutes to the United Kingdom and then gaining profits from the acts of prostitution of those transported. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, gave guidance on the new 'forum bar' provision in s 19B of the Extradition Act 2003. It held that there was no forum bar to the appellant's extradition. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants, two entrepreneurs, brought an action against the defendants a not-for-profit organisation called 'The Spamhaus Project' which tracked and reported on sources of spam on the internet. The action was in libel and was in respect of material published on the defendants website in the United Kingdom. The defendants applied to strike out the pleadings or alternatively for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench dismissed the defendants application. 

Mental Health – Persons who lack capacity. The applicant and first respondent acted contrary to a best interests declaration made by the Court of Protection. The court held that acting contrary to a declaration could not trigger contempt proceedings. It gave guidance on the correct approach of the parties and the court to orders made under s 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

Criminal evidence – Hearsay. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against his conviction for murder and perverting the course of justice, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that it was in the interests of the defendant and co-defendant that an alleged hearsay statement should be admitted in evidence, pursuant to s 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his planning appeal for residential development, associated access and landscaping. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had misinterpreted and misapplied para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the policies in the local plan, he had erred in assuming that the physical limits boundary had been defined in the local plan and he had failed to assess the significance of a heritage asset. 

Patent – Threats of infringement proceedings. The claimants and defendants co-operated by means of an exclusive patent licence agreement to sell flood defence products. They fell out, and the defendants made statements on their website and in a letter threatening proceedings. The defendants had applied for a United Kingdom patent, which had not been granted. The claimants sought summary judgment on its claim that the defendant had made groundless threats of infringement proceedings, contending that the threats were groundless. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendants had a real prospect of establishing at trial that the sale of the claimants' products between the date of the threats and the grant of the patent had infringed the first defendant's rights. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Now Wireless Ltd (Now), established in the United Kingdom, against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), concerning revocation proceedings between Now and Starbucks (HK) Ltd regarding the registration by the latter company of a figurative mark depicting the word 'now'.