Latest Cases

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In the course of proceedings concerning a trade mark dispute between the claimant company, Merck KGaA and the defendant company, a preliminary issue arose as to the governing law of an agreement entered into between the parties. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, the agreement was governed by German law rather than the law of New Jersey. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. In 2009, CS, the patient, was formally diagnosed as having Alzheimer's disease, he executed a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs, and an LPA for health and welfare in which he appointed his son, M, to be the sole attorney. M delegated his powers to his mother, who it was found, following investigation by the Office of Public Guardian was living off CS's income. Various applications came before the court. The Court of Protection revoked the LPA for property and financial affairs and appointed a panel member and M to act jointly as CS's deputies for property and affairs. 

Restraint of trade by agreement – Employer and employee. The claimant company worked in the recycling of glass. The first defendant left the employment of the claimant to set up the second defendant company, which acted in competition to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings for, among other things breach of confidential and fiduciary duties. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence, the substantitive claims against the defendants succeeded. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Eritrean national contended she was a former relevant child and, as such, the defendant local authority owed duties to her, even though she had never been a looked after child on account of her age having been assessed as being over 18. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant had not been a former relevant child, even if she had been 16 when she had entered the United Kingdom, as she had not, in fact, been looked after by the authority. However, her age was relevant, as the discretion to provide her with accommodation might arise if the authority had acted unlawfully in failing to accommodate her, if she had been 16 when she had arrived in the UK. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant and the defendant were both companies engaged in the fashion design business. The claimant had supplied the defendant with a sample of fabric. It brought proceedings, alleging that the defendant had breached its copyright and community design by amending the design of the claimant's sample fabric to create a design for dresses, which the claimant had supplied to Marks & Spencer (M&S). The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, in dismissing the claims, held that, on the evidence, the defendant had not copied the claimant's fabric when the fabric supplied to M&S had been created. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss his appeals against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to grant planning permission and its issue of an enforcement notice. The Planning Court, in allowing the appeal, held, amongst other things, that the Secretary of State's conclusion about flood risk had been unreasonable and/or had failed to take account of material considerations. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendant Secretary of State was not entitled to make a second deportation order or an order quashing the order, following the revocation of an earlier order. He further sought damages and/or compensation for false imprisonment and for violation of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the second deportation order had been unlawful when made absent a sufficient change of circumstances. Accordingly, the claimant had been falsely imprisoned and imprisoned in breach of art 5 of the Convention. 

Crown – Proceedings against. The proceedings concerned claims in tort and applications for judicial review against the defendant Ministries and Secretaries of State involving mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States forces following transfer of custody from the hands of British forces. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claims in tort were not barred by reason of the doctrines of state immunity or foreign act of state. The claims in tort would be barred by the doctrine of Crown act of state if the defendants were able to show that the arrest and detention by British forces had been authorised pursuant to a lawful policy. The applications for judicial review were given permission to proceed where there was no reason to refuse such permission. 

Will – Validity. The children of a deceased sought to challenge her capacity to make a will, which initially favoured the deceased's former partner. The Chancery Division, in upholding the will, held that the deceased had had capacity to make it and had understood and approved its terms. 

Prison – Prisoners. The claimant was serving a life sentence for offences including two murders committed with the presence of children in the vicinity. He challenged the imposition of safeguarding children measures. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that it was not a proper decision, on the facts of the case, to find that the level of risk that the claimant presented to children was such that it had been appropriate or necessary to impose safeguarding children measures.