Latest Cases

Equity – Breach of confidence. The proceedings concerned the development of mosquito nets. The claimant companies submitted that the defendant companies had made use of their confidential information in developing a competing product. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the defendants were liable for breach of confidence. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Employer's liability. The claimant was awarded £7,000 in general damages. She suffered from a frozen shoulder after jarring her shoulder when driving a bus in the course of her employment. The claimant underwent a left shoulder arthroscopy and subacromial decompression, six months post-accident. Her shoulder symptoms had improved significantly and had settled by 80–90% at 12 months post-accident. Full recovery from residual shoulder injury by 21 months post-accident. 

Settlement – Variation of trusts. The proceedings concerned three related claims. In each case, the claimant was the settlor of a trust. The claimant sought an order, under s 1 of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, approving an arrangement proposed to be entered into in relation to an existing trust on the grounds that the arrangement was for the benefit of the minor beneficiaries under that trust and for the benefit of future, yet unborn, beneficiaries under that trust. The Chancery Division refused an application for the hearing to be held in private, ruling, among other things, that the alleged risk that a hearing in open court would lead to the company's customers becoming aware of the levels of profit made by the company had not satisfied the requirement of clear and cogent evidence justifying derogation from the open justice principle. Reporting restrictions were imposed to protect the identity of the children. The court further held that it was appropriate to make an order approving the arrangement under the 1958 Act. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Latvia to stand trial for 'hooliganism', allegedly committed in March 2007. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the absence of a right in Latvia to have a trial terminated on grounds of delay alone had not given rise to a concern under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the overwhelming likelihood was that the appellant would not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding the time he had already spent in custody. Accordingly, his extradition would be disproportionate in terms of art 8 of the Convention. 

Criminal law – Telephone. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for sending a menacing message by a telecommunications network. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, although there had been ample grounds for the defendant court to conclude that the identification of the appellant's voice had been reliable, there had been no threat expressed or implied in the words used, nor had they demonstrated the requisite mental element to menace. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face trial for two drug offences, concerning possession of small quantities of cannabis, with a minimum term of five years' imprisonment in the event of conviction. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it was impossible to say that a minimum five-year sentence was proportionate. It was simply so disproportionate that extradition to face trial for that offence, risking conviction and the certainty on conviction of such a sentence would be disproportionate. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Pakistani national issued judicial review proceedings, claiming that his detention despite medical advice that he was not fit to be detained was unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's detention had been lawful, it had not breached arts 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the defendant Secretary of State's policy. Further, the alleged breach of s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 was wholly unmeritorious. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant record companies applied for an injunction against the defendants, who were the five main retail internet service providers in the UK, requiring the defendants to take measures to block, access by their customers to websites which used peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol. The Chancery Division held that both users and the operators of the websites in issue had used the defendants' services to infringe the claimants' copyrights. The injunction was granted. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Afghan national issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the defendant Secretary of State had erred in granting him discretionary leave to remain, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, having concluded that illegality or error in the public law sense had not been established in relation to an earlier decision, there could be no basis for saying that the Secretary of State ought to have corrected an injustice by granting indefinite leave to remain. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment for swindling and to face trial for driving without a licence. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, held that the fact that the appellant served had nearly two years' imprisonment overall was crucial and the reality was that, unless he was able to involve himself properly in family proceedings, the chances of him being able to maintain family unity were slight.