Latest Cases

Patent – Infringement. The claimants brought bringing pre-emptive action for revocation of the defendants patents relating to computers and computer programming. In earlier proceedings, the court had found, among other things, that one of the defendant's patent had not been infringed by the claimant's devices. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly held that, on the true construction of one of the claims of the patent, there had been no infringement by any of the defendant's devices. 

Prison – Prisoner. The claimant was a serving prisoner. He claims that was detained in degrading conditions, in that the sanitation system required him at times to urinate and defecate in a bucket in his cell. That treatment, he says, was in breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The Queen's Bench Division held that the issue had been decided by the case of Grant v Ministry of Justice [2014] All ER (D) 152 (Dec) and the claimant's case was not distinguishable from that case. 

European Union – Income tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling that arts 52 and 56 of the treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state which subjected winnings from games of chance obtained in casinos in other member states to income tax and exempted similar income from that tax if it was obtained from casinos in its national territory. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The housing benefit payable to the claimants, who were parents with secondary responsibility for their children, had been reduced as a result of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/3040. They sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, as a result of the discretionary housing payments received by each of the claimants, which had completely compensated for the reduction in housing benefit paid to them, none of the claimants had suffered any interference with their family life capable of amounting to a breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Education – Teacher. The claimant was employed by the defendant local authority as a teacher at a school before being released from teaching activities to carry out trade union activities. The authority suspended the claimant. The claimant issued proceedings, claiming that the school had exclusive power to suspend her. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant's contract of employment with the authority had been varied. Accordingly, the claimant fell within the scope of the authority's procedure, as she was within the category of all permanent authority employees and had not fallen within the exceptions which related to staff working in schools. 

Company – Director. The Commercial Court allowed a monetary claim by the claimant company, against the defendant the former CEO of the claimant, in respect of requests by him for payment. In so doing it dismissed the defendant's defence, which depended on there having been, at the dates of each request by him for a payment, an amount due, or to become due, to him in respect of salary and/or expenses. 

Damages – Breach of statutory duty. The Court of Appeal had allowed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal by the trial judge of his claims for damages against National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) in respect of the cause of his mesothelioma, on the basis that NGET had been in breach of its statutory obligations pursuant to reg 2(a) of the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, SI 1931/1140. However, the Court had upheld the judge's decision to dismiss the claim in respect of breach of statutory duty pursuant to s 47 of the Factories Act 1937. The Supreme Court dismissed both NGET's appeal and the claimant's cross-appeal against the Court's judgment. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The judge granted an interim anti-suit injunction against the defendant insurers on the basis that a bill of lading incorporated an English law and exclusive jurisdiction clause referred to in the charterparty. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the reasoning of the judge leading to the conclusion that the jurisdiction clause had been incorporated was compelling. 

Mortgage – Equitable interest. The present appeal was one of ten test cases in which the defendant home owners (the vendors) were persuaded to sell their properties to purchasers who promised the vendors the right to remain in their homes after the sale. The purchasers bought the home with the assistance of mortgages from lenders, who were not given notice of the promises to the vendors. The purchasers defaulted on the loans and the lenders sought possession of the homes. The Supreme Court held that the vendors had acquired no more than personal rights against the purchasers when they agreed to sell their properties on the basis of the purchasers' promises that they would be entitled to remain in occupation. Accordingly, the vendors did not have interests whose priority was protected by virtue of s 29(2)(a)(ii) of, and Sch 3, para 2, to the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Criminal law – Sexual assault. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a defendant who had been convicted of both sexual assault contrary to s 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and robbery contrary to s 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, arising out of the same incident. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence to a limited extent but held that the judge had been perfectly entitled to move outside the recommended range for the combination of two offences, if he had intended to pass concurrent terms.