Latest Cases

Patent – Swiss form claim. The claimant company, W-L, owned the patent for a drug. The patent protection for the drug had lapsed, although W-L still had a medical use patent for one of the three areas in which the drug was used. The defendant company, Actavis, sought to market a generic drug for similar complaints, but there was concern that it might be prescribed by mistake to patients using W-L's protected use. W-L brought proceedings seeking interim relief pending proceedings for infringement of patent. The Patents Court held that the claim did not raise a serious issue to be tried. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant developed a business venture whereby it sold options to sports fans which enabled them to purchase a ticket to future sporting events. The claimant brought claims for damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation against the defendant football club, alleging that it had, in breach of an agreement, failed to provide it access to a number of tickets for the 2012/2013 FA Cup semi-final and final. The Chancery Division, allowing the claim in part, held that a representation made by the defendant and relied upon by the claimant had been false and was actionable under the terms of the agreement. The claim succeeded, save in relation to allegations based on fraud. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following their separation, the mother and father of three children were engaged in long-running private law proceedings in respect of the care of their children, in particular, the amount of time that they should spend with their father. The judge made an order, pursuant to s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, against the father, prohibiting further applications for a period of three years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been a need for a significant period, not a very long period, but a significant period, of absence of litigation, or at least control of litigation through the filter of s 91(14) of the Act, and three years was not a period that could be properly challenged in the context of the present case. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) student under the points based system for failing to provide evidence of funds available within the month before the application. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, accepted contemporaneous documents showing that the bank statement submitted with the application had been out of date. Further, the evidential flexibility policy did not cover the error. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of one year imprisonment for fraud. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, for the appellant to go to Poland to be released in a matter of a very few weeks would be wholly disproportionate, bearing in mind the 14 years that had elapsed since the offence and, more particularly, that he had not gone without punishment because he had served a substantial term of imprisonment in the United Kingdom. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants who had been detained and subjected to control orders and to asset-freezing orders brought claims against the defendants on the basis of documents discovered after the fall of Colonel Qadhafi in October 2011 in the offices of his security services. The defendants applied to dismiss and/or strike out the claims; and in the alternative for a stay. The Queen's Bench Division largely dismissed the applications. 

National Health Service – Dentist. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the proper interpretation of the Standard General Dental Services Contract entered into in accordance with the National Health Service (General Dental Services Contracts) Wales Regulations 2006, SI 2006/490. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision sending his case to the Secretary of State for her decision whether the appellant was to be extradited in order to face trial for the war crime of shooting dead a civilian in 1991. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it would not be unjust to extradite the appellant due to the passage of time and it would not be oppressive to extradite him on the basis of his physical and mental condition. 

Bankruptcy – Insolvency. The claimant company served a statutory demand on the defendant. A judge dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the statutory demand and for an extension of time to adduce a supplemental expert reports. The claimant presented a bankruptcy petition against the defendant. It appealed against orders by a Chief Registrar, adjourning the bankruptcy petition and making directions on the defendant's application to rescind or vary orders of the judge. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appeal, held that s 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 gave the court jurisdiction to review, vary or rescind the appellate orders of the judge. However, on the requirements imposed on the defendant by r 6.5(4)(c), the application under s 375(1) of the Act failed on the merits and was dismissed and the bankruptcy order was made. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Spain to face trial for rape and attempted murder on the basis that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him given his psychiatric illness, which gave rise to a risk of suicide. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no proper basis for supposing that the Spanish authorities would not discharge their obligations to take appropriate steps to protect the appellant from the risk of suicide. In particular, there was no evidential basis for supposing that the communication difficulties he feared would materialise.