Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered an application by a health provider to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from AB, who had been unconscious since 2005 with no prospect of recovery. The court held that it was in AB's best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The present appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal raised questions as to the interpretation and effect of a list of issues. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's appeal against the tribunal's decision, deciding that a list of issues was not a pleading, but a tool to facilitate a hearing, and could not be approached with the formality one might approach a commercial contract or pleading. Even if it was, the issues list in the present case could not be construed as the employee had contended. 

Limitation of action – When time begins to run. The police constabulary had settled a claim for personal injury and sought a contribution from the local authority. The judge found that the contribution proceedings were statute barred under s 10(4) of the Limitation Act 1980 and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the constabulary's appeal on the basis that the case had fallen within s 10(4) of the Act, and not s 10(3) as the constabulary contended. On the correct interpretation of s 10(4), time had started to run from settlement of the damages, and not from settlement as to costs, with the result that the contribution proceedings had been statute barred. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that cl 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work should be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, pending the completion of competitive selection procedures for the recruitment of tenured staff of schools administered by the state, authorised the renewal of fixed-term employment contracts to fill posts of teachers and administrative, technical and auxiliary staff that were vacant and unfilled without stating a definite period for the completion of those procedures and while excluding any possibility, for those teachers and staff, of obtaining compensation for any damage suffered on account of such a renewal. 

Pension – Pension scheme. In the course of references made to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) concerning contribution notices issued against two controlling shareholders in a company in liquidation which had operated an occupational pension scheme, the tribunal ruled on two applications made by: (i) one of the controlling shareholders (DG); and (ii) the trustee of that scheme, relating to the question as to whether certain documents held by DG could not be disclosed in the proceedings relating to those references on the grounds that legal professional privilege attached to them. 

Criminal procedure – Apparent bias – Application to decline jurisdiction. High Court of Justiciary: In an application by the Crown to set aside an acquittal and grant authority to bring a new prosecution, a trial judge in 2007 having acquitted the respondent of charges of the rape and murder of two girls in 1977, the court rejected the respondent's application submitting that the Lord Justice Clerk, who had presided over another trial involving him 12 years earlier, should decline jurisdiction to hear the double jeopardy application, as the impartial and informed observer would not suspect bias as a result of the Lord Justice Clerk's past involvement with the respondent. 

Criminal procedure – Leave to appeal. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a conviction for carrying out a fraudulent scheme, the court held that it would not be appropriate to grant leave to appeal on any of the three grounds, alleging contraventions of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and presented as compatibility issues, on which the application was based. 

Costs – Order for costs. Three applicants, D, P and DAP, made common cause against T, originally relying upon the same points of claim. They subsequently fell out and served separate pleadings. Shortly before trial, P and DAP settled with T, and T agreed not to seek any order for costs against P or DAP. D proceeded to trial and lost. D was ordered to pay 80% of T's costs, with no contribution to those costs from P and DAP. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing D's appeal in part, held, inter alia, that the settlement agreement was not an answer to D's contribution claim. It was merely part of the circumstances of the case which the judge, having exercised his discretion under CPR 44.2, should have taken into account. 

Sentence – Murder. Following the repatriation of the defendant who was serving a life sentence for murder in Germany, the Secretary of State referred his case to the court for the making of an order under s 269(2) or (4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Queen's Bench Division held that, as the evidence was that the defendant's release in Germany before serving 20 years would have been highly improbable, the appropriate minimum term was one of 20 years, less the 496 days he had spent on remand in pre-trial custody and awaiting extradition. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant alleged infringement of its patent concerning mobile phone technology. The defendant denied infringement of the patent and contended that it lacked novelty and was obvious over prior art. The Patents Court, in allowing the claim, held that the patent did not lack novelty, was not obvious and, on the facts, it had been infringed.