Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. Following a substantive hearing in which the claimant, although abandoning a large number of claims pre-trial, had been largely successful at trial, the court ordered that: (i) the claimant was to pay 80% of the defendant's costs on a standard basis up to and including a pre-trial review; (ii) the defendant was to pay 20% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis up to and including the pre-trial review; and (iii) the defendant was to pay 100% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis after the pre-trial review up to and including the trial. 

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. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In the course of a dispute concerning the paying of sub-contractors, the defendant employer made an application, contending that the English court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was a good arguable case that the position was as claimed by the claimant and that it had been reasonably forseeable that the claim might be issued in, among other places, England. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The claimant NHS Trust sought declarations which would allow a Caesarian section to be performed on the defendant, who was 32 weeks pregnant and who suffered from psychotic mental illness and diabetes. The Court of Protection held that the defendant lacked capacity to consent to medical treatment. It granted the declarations sought where it was in the defendant's best interests that a Caesarian section was undertaken. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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.