Latest Cases

Patent – Practice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered an appeal against a decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the defendant in proceedings for patent infringement. The court rejected the claimant's contention that the judge had wrongly granted summary judgment without the benefit of hearing expert evidence which would throw light upon the issues of construction and infringement. 

Company – Administration order. The Chancery Division, Companies Court, considered an application by the former joint administrators of Brilliant Independent Media Specialists Ltd (In Liquidation) (the company) for the court to fix their remuneration pursuant to r 2.106 and 2.108 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925. Taking into account the outcome of the administration and the benefit achieved the court held that £233,147.25 was a fair, reasonable and proportionate sum. 

Criminal law – Conspiracy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered an application by the Attorney General in respect of H, who had been convicted of three counts of conspiracy to defraud and one count of retaining a wrongful credit, and S, who had been convicted of two counts of conspiracy to defraud, and held their sentences had been unduly lenient given the extent and circumstances of the offending in what had been a profound misuse of the professional training of both men. Both men were legal professionals and had fraudulently obtained mortgages. H's sentence was varied to a concurrent term of six years and three months' imprisonment in respect of counts 1, 2 and 2 and a concurrent term of nine months' imprisonment in respect of count 4. S's sentences were ordered to run consecutively, with an overall term of three years' imprisonment. 

Adoption – Order. The mother of a child sought leave to oppose an application for adoption of her youngest child. Her two older children had already been made the subject of care and placement orders because of the risk of sexual abuse posed to them by the paternal family and the mother's unwillingness to sever her strong ties to that family. The Family Court dismissed the mother's application. Although she alleged that her circumstances had changed and she had moved away from the paternal family, the judge was not satisfied that the mother's circumstances had changed, or changed for a sufficient period, to allow her application. 

Costs – Order for costs. In a dispute concerning costs, the claimant was required to file Further Information, which it failed to file on time as the result of an oversight. The claimant submitted that, among other things, there had been no breach of the CPR in failing to provide the Further Information at the commencement of the detailed assessment proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, although there had been breach, the claimant's appeal against the finding of the costs judge would be allowed on the basis that an incorrect sanction had been applied. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant claimed damages for unlawful immigration detention due to her allegations of torture and misfeasance in public office with respect to her attempted removal absent consideration of her further representations. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no independent evidence of torture and the fact that the attempted removal had been unlawful did not mean that the purpose of her detention had ceased to be lawful. Further, there was no evidence of the relevant officials' state of mind such as to find misfeasance in public office. 

Race relations – Discrimination. The employment tribunal struck out two aspects of the employee's claim of race discrimination and unlawful detriment by reason of his having made a protected disclosure. It made other aspects of the claim subject to deposit orders. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, among other things, the tribunal had not erred in the striking out, and had erred only with regard to one of the aspects made subject to a deposit order. 

European Union – Public procurement. The claimant company had failed in a public procurement tender conducted by the defendant Ministry of Defence. The claimant alleged an abnormally low tender and predatory pricing on the part of the winning bidder. A statutory suspension pursuant to reg 56 of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1848, came into effect. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the MOD's application for a lifting of the suspension as there was a serious issue to be tried, damages were an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience was in favour of the suspension being lifted. 

Education – School. The claimant local authority sought judicial review of the defendant Independent Appeal Panel's decision, allowing the parents' appeal against the claimant's refusal to offer a place to the child at a specific school on the basis that the offer was not withdrawn in a reasonable time frame. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant had erred by considering the failure to withdraw the offer within a reasonable time had, in itself, necessarily made the withdrawal of the offer and the consequent refusal to admit unreasonable in a public law sense. It had failed to consider any prejudice to the parties. 

European Union – State aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 107(1) TFEU. The request had been made in proceedings between the Spanish Ministry of Defence and Navantia SA and the Municipality of Ferrol concerning an exemption from property tax relating to land made available by Spain to Navantia.