Latest Cases

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's claims in negligence and for breach of statutory duty against the manufacturer of a probe the failure of which it contended had been the cause of a major fire in its factory. 

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. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. As a preliminary issue, the Queen's Bench Division held that there had been no breach of duty by the first defendant NHS Trust in failing to arrange a brain scan for the claimant in January 2001 when the claimant had had a tumour on the brain. 

Drugs – Controlled drugs. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for conspiracy to supply a controlled drug and held that the sentence, imposed for professional drug dealing at the highest level, had not been wrong in principle or manifestly excessive 

Minor – Abduction. A Maltese girl was brought by her mother to the United Kingdom without the knowledge or consent of the father. The father applied to the court for her return to Malta. The mother and K opposed the application. The Family Division dismissed the application and found that all three defences under the Hague Convention had been made out and K would not be returned to Malta as she had successfully established family life in the UK. 

Water and watercourses – Reservoir. The claimant charity sought judicial review of the defendant's decision to approve and proceed with proposals for reservoir safety works to the ponds on Hampstead Heath, subject to obtaining planning permission. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no basis for requiring safety to be balanced against competing factors such as preservation of the landscape, protection of the environment or heritage assets. Further, the defendant had not adopted an irrational approach to risk on the proper construction of the purpose of the Reservoirs Act 1975. 

Divorce – Jurisdiction. The parties had been married. The husband sought a separation order from the Italian court and the wife issued divorce proceedings in England. The wife's proceedings were stayed. The Italian court confirmed its jurisdiction and granted the husband the order, which was a precursor to divorce in Italy. The wife issued a second petition for divorce and the husband applied for a divorce in Italy. The Family Division, in dismissing the wife's petitions, held that the Italian court had been seised when her first petition had been made and that that had not been lost by the time the wife had issued her second petition. 

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. 

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. 

Holiday – Contract. Whilst on holiday in Spain, the claimant suffered a fall at the hotel and sustained injuries. She succeeded in her claim against the defendant organiser of the holiday package. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held, among other things, that the recorder had not, on the basis of the facts found, been justified in his conclusion that it had been an accident such as in the ordinary course of things did not happen if those who had the management of the hotel used proper care. It had been an accident which could have occurred despite the use of proper care.