Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother was addicted to drugs and had the child, J, whilst in prison. The local authority brought care proceedings in respect of J and sought a special guardianship order in favour of the paternal grandmother. The mother opposed the making of the order on the basis that she was well and committed to staying clean. The Family Court, in allowing the application, held that J's overwhelming interests required the court to make a special guardianship order in favour of the paternal grandmother. 

Patent – Infringement of patent. The claimant alleged that the defendant (BT) infringed two of its patents (495 and 790) concerning the methods for controlling the way in which an asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) operated. The alleged infringement related to the system used by BT to monitor and control its ADSL network. The Patents Court held that, applying settled law to the facts, that 790 was valid and was infringed by BT's system and that 495 was valid and was not infringed by BT's systems. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed BT's appeal in respect of 790 where there had been no error by the judge in his construction of the patent or finding of infringement. The claimant's appeal in respect of 495 was allowed as the claim which had resulted in a finding of non-infringement had been invalid, and the remaining claims had been both valid and infringed. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Zimbabwean asylum seeker challenging a decision refusing to treat her further submissions as a fresh claim, the court (the asylum claim having been abandoned), concluded that the decision-maker had not erred in addressing the petitioner's case based on the right to a family and private life. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant's claim that the defendant orthopaedic surgeon had acted negligently while performing a hip replacement was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that she was unable to show that, on the balance of probability, the defendant had negligently failed to reattach the muscle to the bone or had not reattached it sufficiently firmly. Further, general evidence of lack of probity, stress and incompetence in other areas of practice could not make up the deficiency. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant's husband had been engaged by the defendant under a contract for services as a security escort in Iraq. He died in the course of carrying out his duties and an issue arose as to the payment to which the claimant was entitled under the contract. She contended that she was entitled to a minimum lump sum payment of US$200,000. The judge dismissed her claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed her appeal as, on the true construction of the contractual documentation, there had been no obligation that the sums due to her were to be paid by way of lump sum and, so long as she had received US$200,000, there had been no breach of contract. 

Judicial review – Competency. Court of Session: Granting a reclaiming motion by the respondents in a petition for judicial review in which the Lord Ordinary had granted the interim orders the petitioner sought in a motion enrolled before service of the petition, the court held that the invocation, by means of a judicial review petition, of the Court of Session's supervisory jurisdiction was not competent where the foundation of the petitioner's case was his contract of employment, and it dismissed the petition as incompetent. 

Consumer credit – Extortionate credit bargain. In proceedings concerning the non-disclosure of commission payments in respect of single payment protection insurance premiums (PPI), the Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal of the defendant credit company, held that Harrison v Black Horse Ltd[2011] All ER (D) 112 (Oct) had been wrongly decided and that the non-disclosure of commissions payable out of the claimant's PPI premium had made her relationship with the defendant unfair. Consideration was given to s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. MK was a dissident Iranian politician resident in Paris. She had been excluded from the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Foreign Office, on the ground that her presence would not be conducive to the public good. The Supreme Court dismissed the claimants' appeal arising from the Secretary of State's decision and held, amongst other things, that to reject the Foreign Office assessment of the risks to national security, public safety and the rights of others would be to step beyond the proper function of a court of review and would involve rejecting by far the strongest and best qualified evidence before it. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimants were housed with their families in interim accommodation by the defendant local authorities (the authorities). The accommodation was provided pending investigation into whether the authorities owed the claimants a duty under the Housing Act 1996. The authorities decided that the claimants and their families had become intentionally homeless, and required them to leave. The Supreme Court held that the authorities had not been required to obtain court orders before evicting them pursuant to ss 3(1) and 3(2B) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as contended and, further, that doing so had not violated their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Trust and trustee – Removal of trustee. The proceedings concerned the administration of an estate. The claimant, who was the beneficiary of the trust affecting the estate, brought proceedings against the trustees. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, it would be appropriate to replace one of the trustees, and for the trustees to pay compensation for failure to achieve the repair and re-letting of a house and to take steps to obtain possession of a cottage on the estate.