Latest Cases

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 4(2) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society) had to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exhaustion of the distribution right set out in art 4(2) of that directive did not apply in a situation where a reproduction of a protected work, after having been marketed in the EU with the copyright holder's consent, had undergone an alteration of its medium, such as the transfer of that reproduction from a paper poster onto a canvas, and was placed on the market again in its new form 

Land – Acquisition of title by possession. The issue on the appeal was whether an application for a person to be registered, under the Land Registration Act 2002, as the proprietor of a registered estate in land by reason of a period of adverse possession was valid, where part of the relevant period of possession consisted of the occupation of a residential building in circumstances constituting the commission of a criminal offence, under s 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the enactment of s 144 of LASPO, and the commission of an offence under it, did not have any material effect on the operation on the law of adverse possession. 

Libel and slander – Justification. In a preliminary hearing, in libel proceedings concerning a premier league footballer, the Queen's Bench Division gave a ruling on the meaning of the words complained of and also refused the defendant's application to amend its defence. 

Town and country planning – Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The case involved a challenge to the way the defendant Secretary of State recovered appeals relating to travellers' pitches in the Green Belt. The Planning Court upheld the claimants' challenges based on breaches of ss 19 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010, as the Secretary of State had taken no steps to address unlawful discrimination and had had no regard to the public sector equality duty. Their challenge under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights succeeded because of the substantial delays that had occurred in the claimants' cases. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's recovery of their cases would be quashed. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. Judgment had been entered for the claimant against the defendant surgeon for damages for negligence on the part of the defendant in a surgical procedure performed by him upon the claimant's late wife, following which, she had suffered kidney failure. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge had been entitled to have fastened upon those aspects of the evidence which he had found to have been reliable pointers to what had actually occurred during the procedure, without trawling through every issue, side issue or speculation that arose on the evidence or in argument. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The first defendant was at the material times a spokesman for the unincorporated association known as The Coalition of Badger Action Groups (CBAG), which formed a part of the movement to stop the culling of badgers. The claimants were farmers and other interested parties that had been given permission to do a pilot cull of badgers. An injunction was granted and the claimants claimed that the defendants had breached the terms and that the first defendant should be committed for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division held that the breaches had been proved to the required standard. 

Negligence – Causation. The proceedings concerned the trial of the issues of breach of duty and causation in the claimant's clinical negligence claim against the defendant NHS Trust. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that, although breach of duty had been established, the claimant had failed in his case on causation. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The business of the claimant, Gordon Ramsay (R) was run, in large part, by H. H operated a machine that automatically signed R's signature onto a guarantee. The issue arose as to whether R would be bound by the guarantee. The Chancery Division held that when H had committed R to the guarantee, he had been acting within the wide general authority conferred on him by R. 

Trade dispute – Dispute connected with terms and conditions of employment. The Privy Council allowed an appeal by Municipal Police Officers in Trinidad and Tobago who had complained that for over a decade they had been treated less favourably than Regular Police Officers, particularly in terms of remuneration. 

Criminal law – Trial. The justices refused the prosecution's application for an adjournment of the respondent's trial for driving with excess alcohol in his breath to obtain playable CCTV footage and stayed the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the justices had been correct in law in refusing the prosecution's request to adjourn the trial. However, they had erred in acceding to the respondent's request to stay the case. Further, the court gave guidance on the scope of appellate review of justices' case management decisions.