Latest Cases

Court of Appeal – Time for appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the circumstances in which it was appropriate for the court to grant significant extensions of time when the responsibility for the delay lay with the court and the legal representatives and not with the applicant personally. 

Criminal law – Fitness to plead. Two separate appeals were heard together because they raised similar issues concerning defendants who had been found unfit to plead. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, where a defendant's disability impacted on his ability to take part in a trial, but he was not otherwise affected by a psychiatric condition such as rendered what was said in interview unreliable, there was no reason why the jury should not hear it, albeit with an appropriate warning. The finding in each case was safe and the appeals were dismissed. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Aic SA (Aic) against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic concerning a Community design owned and registered by Aic intended to be applied to 'Heat exchangers'. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Following an appeal by three former servicemen who had been injured in service, the Queen's Bench Division, having regard to the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, held that the fixed success fee regime in (pre 1 April 2013) CPR 45, s IV did not apply to claims brought by members of the armed forces in respect of injuries suffered at work. 

Civil procedure – Summary decree: Court of Session: Refusing an apppeal in an action for payment of solicitors' fees against a sheriff principal's refusal of an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor dismissing the defender's counterclaim on the pursuer's motion for summary decree, the court held that the sheriff was entitled, on the averments and the other material relied on, to conclude that the counterclaim had no real prospect of success, and the sheriff principal did not err in his approach to the appeal before him. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant company to restrain it from acting contrary to the claimant's interests in alleged breach of trust and in alleged conflict of interest. The defendant applied for a stay. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, it would be appropriate for the stay to be granted. 

Immigration – Citizenship. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings challenging the Home Secretary's refusal of the petitioner's application for registration as a British Citizen pursuant to s 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981, the court considered that counsel for the respondent's construction was to be preferred as regards the correct legal meaning to be applied to s 4C, which he submitted by its explicit terms extended only to those persons who would by operation of law have become British subjects or citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without the need for registration. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had owned a painting which he had sold at auction through the defendant auction house for £42,000. The defendant had assessed the painting as being a copy of a well-known work by Caravaggio. After the sale, the buyer, who was an art scholar of great renown, declared the painting to be by Caravaggio himself. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant alleging negligence in its investigation of the painting. The Chancery Division dismissed his claim. It considered the scope of the duty of care owed by a leading auction house, as opposed to a provincial one, and concluded that the defendant had not been negligent in its assessment of the painting. 

European Union – Regulation. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (Abdulrahim), residing in London for annulment of certain decisions taken by the European Commission which had included and maintained Abdulrahim on a list of persons and entities whose funds and other economic resources were to be frozen due to their association with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban. The General Court decided that none of the allegations made against the applicant was such as to justify the adoption, at EU level, of restrictive measures against him. 

Child – Care. The local authority's case was that G has been subjected to FGM and that that constituted 'significant harm' within the meaning of s 31 of the Children Act 1989. The Family Court held that there was insufficient evidence of FGM but that FGM did amount to 'significant harm' for the purposes of s 31 of the Act.