Latest Cases

Crown Court – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, amended the defendant's sentence in circumstances where the judge had imposed a sentence which did not comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation. 

Insurance – Marine insurance. The owners of a vessel claimed against the defendant war risks insurers for the constructive total loss of the vessel by reason of her detention for longer than the six month in Venezuela. That detention was consequent upon the discovery of drugs affixed on the hull of the vessel by unknown persons, without the knowledge of the owners. The Commercial Court granted the owners' claim for a constructive total loss on the basis that there was cover under the policy for the malicious acts of the third parties who strapped the drugs to the hull of the vessel and the exclusion for infringement of customs regulations, claimed by the insurers, did not apply to exclude cover in the circumstances of the case. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Nigerian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to certify his asylum and human rights claims as clearly unfounded. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that whether the no realistic prospect of success or the clearly unfounded test had been used, the conclusion would inevitably have been the same. Further, nothing in the Secretary of State's decision letter indicated that she had failed to have regard to the claimant's medical evidence of his severe depression and suicide risk. 

Human Rights – Right to fair trial. The applicant complained that the presence of retired and serving police officers on the jury, which had convicted him of murder, violated his right to a fair trial, as provided in art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that there was no evidence of actual partiality on the part of either the retired or the serving officer during the trial. Having regard to all the considerations, the safeguards present at the applicant's trial had been sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the jury which had tried the applicant's case. 

Town and Country Planning – Development. By an application, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the claimant sought to quash a decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to allow an appeal against the decision of the second defendant local authority, and to grant planning permission to extend a motor repair garage and retrospectively to extend rear parking. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held, inter alia, that the inspector's conclusion that the increase in activity at the rear area of the site had not been material had not arguably been outside the range of legitimate conclusions to which she had been entitled to have come. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application brought by Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH (Inter-Union) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Inter-Union and Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL (Gumersport) regarding the application by Gumersport for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'PROFLEX' as a Community trade mark. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, upholding an enforcement notice issued by the second respondent local planning authority, alleging that she had erected a dwelling without planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the inspector's decision letter had failed to grapple with the question of what operations had been carried out. However, he had not erred by failing to consider whether some steps short of complete demolition would suffice to remedy the breach of planning control. 

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned four appeals from arbitration awards, which raised questions of interpretation of the cancellation provisions in four materially identical shipbuilding contracts between the buyers and the shipbuilders. The Commercial Court held, inter alia, that, on the facts pleaded by the shipbuilder in its defence and counterclaim submissions in the arbitrations, and on a true construction of the contracts between the parties, the buyers had, in each case, been entitled to cancel the contract and to repayment of the instalments of the price paid by them. 

European Union – European Parliament. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Mr Schonberger (S) which sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Schonberger v Parliament: Case T-186/11, by which the General Court had dismissed as inadmissible S's action for annulment of the decision of 25 January 2011 whereby the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions had concluded its examination of the petition submitted by S. 

Local government – Control of dogs. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor ordering the destruction of the appellant's dog and interdicting him from owning a dog for two years following an incident in which the dog bit a child on the face, the court held that the sheriff was entitled to conclude that the dog was dangerously out of control in a public place but he had failed to consider properly a dog control notice as an alternative to destruction and it followed that the appeal should be allowed as to the order disqualifying the appellant from owning a dog.