Latest Cases

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The claimant independent financial advisers sought judicial review of the defendant Financial Ombudsman Service's decisions refusing to stay proceedings against them pending Commercial Court litigation. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the ombudsmen had understood the basis upon which the applications for stays had been made and there was no identifiable error in their approach to the applications. Their reasons were clearly expressed and easily understood. There had been no errors of law and the decisions had not been irrational. 

Mental Health – Representation. The proceedings concerned claims brought against a doctor for damages for negligent surgery for *** cancer. They raised a novel point about what the court should do when the Official Solicitor concluded that he could no longer continue to act as litigation friend for a protected party in litigation because the anticipated source of funding for the Official Solicitor's costs ceased to be available. The Queen's Bench Division held that the court could not compel an Official Solicitor to continue acting in circumstances where funding had been withdrawn. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal against its deemed refusal of development permission. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had erred in failing to consider the views of the core strategy inspector's contrary conclusion as to housing land supply. It refused to exercise its discretion not to quash the decision, given the serious errors of law. 

Judgment – Order. The claimant applied to set aside an order striking out his claim against the second defendant (the first order) and an order that he pay the second defendant's costs (the second order). The Queen's Bench Division set aside both orders. It held that the first order had been made without a hearing, in circumstances which had given the claimant a right, under CPR PD 23A and CPR 3.3(5), to apply to have it set aside, that it would be just to grant an extension of time for making such an application and, having reconsidered the matter, the claim ought not to be dismissed. The second order was parasitic on the first and would, accordingly, be set aside. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant and the third to fifth defendants (Idenix) claimed that the first and second defendants (Gilead) had infringed their patent. The Patents Court, in dismissing the application, held that Gilead was entitled to claim priority of its own international patent application from a United States patent application, such that Idenix's patent lacked novelty. Further claims lacked an inventive step absent technical contribution to the art and one claim contained added matter. Idenix's application to amend the claims were not allowable, since it would result in added matter. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Nepentes Pharma sp. z o.o. (Nepentes) regarding the application by Nepentes for registration of the word sign 'Momarid' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal law – Murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendant's conviction for murder was not safe, in circumstances where there had been uncontradicted medical evidence in support of a defence of diminished responsibility. The court considered impact of the provisions of s 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended by s 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and substituted a verdict of manslaughter. 

European Union – Environment. In its judgment in Commission v Greece (EU:C:2005:592)(the judgment at issue), the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) upheld the action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the European Commission, having established that Greece had failed, generally and persistently, to fulfil its waste management obligations under arts 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive (EEC) 75/442 (on waste), by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement those provisions. In the present proceedings, the Court granted the declaration sought by the European Commission that by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment at issue, Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Child – Care. The principal issue was whether the defendant local authority had provided accommodation for the claimant as a looked after child, under ss 20 and 23(2) of the Children Act 1989, when she had started living with her grandmother. The Administrative Court held that the authority had come under a duty under s 20 of the Act and that the circumstances pointed to the conclusion that the authority had exercised its duty to accommodate the claimant under s 23(2) of the Act and had not arranged a private family fostering under s 23(6) of the Act. 

Admiralty – Jurisdiction. The defendant former owner of a vessel applied for the strike out or withdrawal of a caution against release of the proceeds of sale of the vessel and for payment out of the proceeds of sale in circumstances where there were foreign insolvency proceedings concerning the vessel. The caution had been requested by a company (the company) which had issued a claim in damages for breach of contract of carriage in respect of the vessel. The Admiralty Court held that the company had not lost its statutory right of action in rem. However, where arbitration proceedings had not been commenced within 12 months of discharge, pursuant to the charterparty, the company's claim was, as a matter of contract, was absolutely barred.