Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Asylum. The appellant was a national of Belarus, whose principal claim to remain in the United Kingdom was based on his allegation that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to be returned to Belarus, on account of his political opinions and activities there some 15 years ago. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) dismissed his claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been no error of law in the way in which the FTT had approached its task or in its reasoning or conclusions. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimant was the employer under a building contract. Two adjudication awards were made in the claimant's favour in relation to alleged delay and defective works done by the defendant in respect of new mechanical electrical security and air conditioning systems at a property. The claimant sought to enforce the awards. The claimant offered to settle if payment of a certain sum was made by defendant. The defendant made the payment. The issue was whether the claimant was entitled to her costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant was entitled to costs of £5,500. 

Solemn procedure – Judge's charge. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was found guilty of the culpable homicide of his baby daughter, the court rejected contentions that the trial judge had erred in failing to 'summarise' the evidence of the main Crown and defence witnesses in relation to the possible causes of death and in failing to caution the jury in respect of the evidence given by the appellant's young son.