Latest Cases

Professional misconduct – Medical practitioner. The appellant was a nurse. In October 2012, the appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of fraud. As a result of the convictions, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) brought disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. A panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the NMC (the panel) ruled that the appellant's fitness to be practise had been impaired and ordered that she be struck off. The appellant appealed against the sanction imposed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel was entitled to conclude that no sanction short of striking off would be appropriate. 

Patent – Infringement. The first claimant owned two United Kingdom patents for an invention entitled 'flying shark' and the second claimant was the exclusive licensee of the first claimant in respect of both patents. The defendant devised and imported toys for sale in the UK, in particular, flying fish known as 'mega fliers'. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that both patents had been infringed and ruled on the validity of the claims within each patent. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant, B, had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. B and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation. In the course of proceedings, the bank sought to strike out the claim, and the claimants sought permission to amend the particulars of claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the application to amend would be dismissed, and judgment would be given for the bank. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. OB made a lasting power of attorney (LPA) appointing her two daughters, AW and DH, jointly and severally to be her attorneys. OB lived with AW. DH raised concerns about AW's used of OB's money to, among other things, improve her house. After an investigation, the Public Guardian applied to the Court of Protection to revoke and cancel the registration of the LPA. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to revoke AW's appointment. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. At the end of a pre-hearing review on the question of whether the employee had a disability (the first hearing), the employment tribunal judge concluded that the employee did have a disability but decided to give his reasons for that decision in a written judgment. The tape of the first hearing was subsequently lost. The judge conducted a re-hearing of the same issue. He refusing to recuse himself and proceeded to render the same decision again, despite the employer's protestations of bias and prejudice. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), in allowing the employer's appeal, decided that there was a real possibility of bias at the second hearing as the judge would be bound to be influenced by his earlier decision. 

Costs – Order for costs. The parties sought orders as to costs following trial, in which the claimants' claim for damages for professional negligence against the defendant was dismissed (see Kellie and another v Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd[2014] EWHC 2212 (TCC)). The Technology and Construction Court ordered that the claimants had to pay all of the defendant's costs, to be subject to a detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed. 

Immigration – Detention. In September 2011, the claimant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment. On completion of the custodial part of his sentence, the claimant was detained under para 2(3) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (the Act) until January 2014, when he was granted bail. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision that he be detained under the Act. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not been detained for an unreasonable period and the Secretary of State had not failed to act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. It accepted the employee's evidence that the reason for his dismissal was that the employer had wanted him to continue in the same role that he was already fulfilling, but with a pay reduction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusion was one it had been entitled to reach and there had been no misdirection or perversity. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient was an elderly lady of 79 years, 'J', with longstanding mental health problems and also, in later years, cancer. The relevant NHS Trust issued a notice of application in the Court of Protection seeking declarations: (i) that J lacked capacity to litigate; (ii) that she lacked capacity to take decisions about the proposed medical investigations and treatment; and (iii) that it was in her best interests to have those investigations and treatment. Having regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the court made the declarations sought. 

Personal injury – Breach of statutory duty. Court of Session: In an action by a pursuer who injured her back in the course of her employment with the defenders as a sales surveyor, the court held that the pursuer had proved how the accident happened, that it was caused by defenders' breach of statutory duty, and that there was no contributory negligence by the pursuer.