Latest Cases

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission that by failing to ensure the collection and treatment of urban waste water in certain agglomerations, Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 3 and 4 of Council Directive (EEC) 91/271 (concerning urban waste water treatment). 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant doctor sought judicial review of the defendant Metropolitan Police Service's (the MPS) decision that unlawfully obtained material should be provided to the General Medical Council. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the MPS had erred by failing to carry out the careful balancing exercise of competing interests required by art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the fact that the material had been obtained unlawfully did not outweigh the legitimate aim served by its disclosure and the claimant's rights under art 8 of the Convention had not been violated. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) SA for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union to accept the tenders submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and another company, concerning the provision of computer services for software development and maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of information technology, and to award the framework contracts to other tenderers. 

Local authority – Land. The claimants challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to consent to the local authority's decision to appropriate their allotments. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been an established, objectively verifiable fact, that had existed at the time of decision, material to the decision, but not known to the Secretary of State as a result of a mistake for which the claimants had not been responsible. The decision had been based on a clear consideration that there had been no changes of materiality since the application had been made. Accordingly, the decision had not been in accordance with law. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Medical Council found that the appellant psychiatrist had given evidence outside his professional competence and had failed to explain the reasons for his opinion. The appellant appealed against those findings and the suspension of his registration for a period of three months. The Administrative Court held that the FPP's findings that the allegations against the appellant had been proved had been correct. However, the FPP had not explained why the imposition of a condition on the appellant's registration had not been a sufficient sanction, resulting in a disproportionate sanction. 

Local authority – Land. In the course of the development of a site of land, the question arose as to whether the defendant London Borough of Havering had represented that it would demolish certain premises no matter what, or had represented that it would only demolish them if the claimant company had a protected tenancy. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, among other things, there had been no representation to demolish the premises whatever the circumstances. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant company contended that the defendants had infringed its copyright by using images that it owned on the first defendant's website. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, in allowing the claim, held that, on the evidence, the first defendant had been communicating reproductions of the claimant's artistic works to the public in the United Kingdom. On the case law, the actions of the second defendant, who owned the first defendant, amounted to an authorisation by him personally to his agent to carry out the infringing acts. 

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant was born prematurely at the defendant hospital. She brought a claim for personal injury. The hospital admitted that delivery had been delayed by around 25 minutes due to fault in its systems. However, it was the hospital's case that none of the time differences had any impact on the outcome and that the claimant suffered. The Queen's Bench Division held that the evidence had not established to the requisite standard of a balance of probabilities that the delay in the claimant's delivery had resulted in her injuries. 

Habeas corpus – Grounds for writ of habeas corpus. The mother of two children had been found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment. The Administrative Court refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus and stated that, in the circumstances, habeas corpus was an entirely misconceived remedy, there was a right of appeal, the mother was represented and she had legal aid. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the Administrative Court had been entirely right to have proceeded as it had and for the reasons it had given. 

Patent – Application. The appellant's patent application in respect of an invention consisting of a computer program was rejected and the judge dismissed the appeal against that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant might have overcome the hurdle of achieving a novel and inventive step, but it had not overcome the hurdle of being excluded matter under s 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977.