Latest Cases

Employment – Contract. The judge found that the defendant Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (the FCO) withdrawal of the claimant as British High Commissioner in Belize had been a breach of his contract and the common law duty of care. He awarded damages, including for his depressive illness. The FCO appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the challenge to the judge's findings of breach of contract and causation. However, it found that the judge had erred in finding that it had been reasonably foreseeable that the FCO's conduct might lead him to develop psychiatric illness. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The question in the appeal was whether the judge had been wrong to stay a claim by which the claimants had challenged the defendant company's entitlement to recover legal fees in circumstances where, as they contended, the court itself had and should have exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors and others in relation to the matters of which they complained. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been nothing unsatisfactory in the court having ordered a stay and that the court was bound to stay the claims, unless the claimants established that the arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. 

Costs – Summary assessment of costs. In a costs application for summary assessment, where the interested party had failed to comply with the practice direction, the claimant submitted that the sanction for late failure to comply should be no costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that there was no sanction specified in CPR PD 44 and in any event having decided that in principle that the interested party should have its reasonable costs. To punish the interested party for its failure in effect to the tune of some £40,000 would be wholly disproportionate. 

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant pharmacist appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council to remove his name from the register of pharmacists. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FPP had not erred in finding that the appellant had not been subjected to unacceptable, inappropriate or undue pressure and had lacked insight into his actions. It concluded that there was no error in the imposition of the sanction. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The parties (H and W) were granted a decree nisi following a long marriage. In due course, the judge made an ancillary relief order dealing with the financial affairs of the parties. The judge made a costs order against H. H appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, modified the ancillary relief order to a limited extent, but found that the costs order reflected the judge's findings to the H's attitude to W's claims. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive (EEC) 85/374 (on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products), as amended, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, establishing a special liability system for the purposes of art 13 of that directive — under which, in consequence of an amendment to that legislation made after the directive had been notified to the member state concerned, the consumer had the right to require the manufacturer of the medicinal product to provide him with information on the adverse effects of that product. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employer appealed against an employment tribunal's finding that the employee was a disabled person during two periods of absences. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there was no evidence justifying the tribunal's finding in respect of the first period of absence. 

Criminal law – Offensive weapons. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who was found guilty of having a bladed article, namely two knives, with him in a public place, without reasonable excuse, the court held that where lack of knowledge of the offending item was proffered as an excuse by an accused person in evidence, as in this case, it was almost inevitable that an appropriate direction should be given that the jury might find such an excuse to exist, however the sheriff had made no mention of the defence of reasonable excuse in his charge to the jury.