Latest Cases

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. 

Company – Voluntary winding up. The claimant companies sought relief, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, for the first defendant's misapplication of a company's funds while acting as its liquidator. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that the first defendant had acted in breach of the duty implicit in s 107 of the 1986 Act and had acted negligently in paying out the funds. Further, the first defendant's defences, including under s 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 and the illegality of the company's conduct were rejected, as her conduct had not been reasonable and the illegality defence did not arise in the circumstances. 

Patent – Infringement. Applying established law, the Queen's Bench Division held that, the defendant, Victoria's Secret use in the Euroepan Union of PINK both on its goods and as the name of its stores was an infringement of the claimant's registered trade mark rights, Thomas Pink Ltd. Amongst other things, the use of PINK emblazoned on the defendant's items of clothing gave rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority had issued care proceedings in respect of two children. Initially, the authority had recommended supervision orders, but later changed the plan to one of foster care. The judge ordered that the children would be removed into foster care and the mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judgment had been flawed in its approach to the events which had led to the authority's change of mind and had been lacking in the detail that had been required to substantiate the decision. The matter would be remitted for rehearing. 

Sentence – Drug offence. Ten defendants appealed against their sentences for their involvement in drug offences and peripheral criminal activity ranging between two and 15 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal of all but one defendant, as the judge's articulated sentencing exercised had either been flawed or notably inconsistent between some defendants. Accordingly, the sentences would be reduced to between 18 months, and nine years and six months. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Following the Supreme Court decision in Surrey County Council v P and others[2014] All ER (D) 185 (Mar), a concern arose following the judgment around the practical and procedural implications for the Court of Protection of what had been agreed would be the large increase in its case-load of, deprivation of liberty (DoL) cases which would follow in consequence of the Supreme Court's decision. In order to address the increase, the Court of Protection devised a standardised, and so far as possible 'streamlined', process, compatible with all the requirements of art 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Trusts and trustees – Amendment of trust deed – Validity of amending deeds. Court of Session: Granting decree in an action for payment by trustees of a pension fund in which the defenders denied liability, questioning whether the formal amendment procedure set out in the original trust documents was followed, the court held that the amending documents were valid and accordingly the trustees were entitled to decree. 

Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, applying established principles, decided that 'the client' in the present case had not been the same client for the purpose of demonstrating a service provision change. Therefore, the decision of the employment tribunal would be quashed and replaced by a finding that there had been no relevant transfer for the purpose of reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. Further, while the tribunal had erred in looking at the activities rather than the task in considering whether the employment had been in connection with a single specific event or task of short-term duration, it was not open to the EAT to substitute its view in answering that question. 

Landlord and tenant – Variation of lease – Personal bar – Rei interventus – Waiver. Court of Session: In an action in which the owner of a shopping centre sought declarator that the tenant of subjects within the centre was personally barred from taking any action to prevent it from constructing a building abutting the existing centre and leasing it to another retailer, the court held that the pursuer was not entitled to declarator, not having established on grounds of the operation of statutory personal bar, or common law rei interventus, or by waiver of its right under the lease that the defender was barred from any action that would prevent the pursuer from constructing and leasing the building. 

Adoption – Practice. The applicants sought a declaration that an adoption order made in Brazil in the applicants' favour in respect of their niece and nephew, D and E, be recognised under the law of England and Wales. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that the adoptions of D and E should be properly recognised in accordance with the common law of England and Wales and that a declaration to that effect would be granted, pursuant to s 57 of the Family Law Act 1986.