Latest Cases

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The claimant brought an action in the English court for revocation of the defendant's patent concerning treatment for Parkinson's disease and restless leg syndrome. Parallel proceedings concerning the validity of patent were ongoing before European Patent Office. The defendant applied for a stay of the English proceedings. The Patents Court declined to stay the proceedings, despite undertakings offered by the defendant, where the competing considerations favoured the refusal of a stay. 

Right to claim body for burial. Sheriff Court: In an action which concerned the right to claim the body of a deceased soldier for burial, the court held that the pursuer as his widow was entitled to make the arrangements for his funeral, as she had priority over his mother, as the person nominated as executor in his will, and other close family members. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In response to the father's application for contact with his son, the mother alleged domestic violence against him. She wished to call her 13 year old daughter to give evidence. The judge made an order directing that a CAFCASS adviser be appointed to meet with and interview the daughter and prepare a report for the court on whether or not it was appropriate or harmful for her to give evidence. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the position regarding evidence from a child who was not the subject of the proceedings and held that the judge had not erred in her approach. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The trustees of the BT pension scheme had asked the court to determine the extent of the Crown guarantee pursuant to s 68 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 as it applied to the pension scheme. The Crown guarantee had been given at the time when the British Telecommunications Corporation had been privatised and had become British Telecommunications plc (BT). The judge had made declarations as to the interpretation of cl 20 of the deed that had established the scheme and s 68 of the Act. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal in part. Clause 20 of the deed did not impose an obligation upon the Corporation, or therefore upon BT, to pay the buy-out lump sum on the termination of the scheme. Further, the Crown guarantee did cover contributions by BT in respect of post-transfer joiners. 

Contract – Construction. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of cl 19 of GAFTA 64, the words 'any notice received after 1600 hours on a business day shall be deemed to have been received on the business day following' did not apply to all contracts but only in case of resales/repurchases. 

Contempt of court – Counsel. The defendant barrister appealed against the finding that he was in contempt of court in the course of representing his client. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's finding that the defendant had been impertinent had not demonstrated an inability impartially to determine whether the conduct constituted a contempt of court. However, the email informing the defendant of the contempt hearing had clearly fallen short of the procedural requirements set out in the CPR. In cases of alleged contempt, strict observance of the provisions was essential. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The father had taken his child to Singapore, with the mother's consent, to live with the paternal grandparents for a short period. The father then refused to return the child to the United Kingdom and the mother issued proceedings. Three orders were made which required the father to return, or secure the return, of the child. By the third order, the judge refused to recuse herself, found the father guilty of contempt, and committed him to a term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the father's appeal to the extent that the recital to the second order should not have been included, the judge had not properly explained herself in refusing to recuse and should have directed the committal application to be heard by another judge and, finally, the judge's reasoning had not provided adequate support for her finding of contempt, accordingly, the father would be released from custody. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The defendant, W, had his employment terminated. He brought proceedings for unfair dismissal, which were settled. Part of the settlement involved an assessment of his shareholding in the first claimant company. A dispute arose concerning the accuracy of the assessment. The claimants brought proceedings, contesting the valuation. The defendant successfully applied to strike out the proceedings. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on the evidence, it was clear that there was no real prospect of the claim succeeding at trial. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that point (c) of the third sub-paragraph of art 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as not precluding a member state, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, from requiring a bank, which carried out leasing activities, amongst other things, to include in the numerator and denominator of the fraction used to determine a single deductible proportion for all of its mixed use goods and services just the part of the rental payments made by customers as part of their leasing agreements that corresponded to interest, where that use of the goods and services was primarily caused by the financing and management of those contracts, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain. 

Town and country planning – Development. The claimant was promoting a new village concept on land that was not within the Green Belt. The planning inspector rejected the claimant's proposed development and required the authority to modify their draft local plan strategy. The claimant sought judicial review of the modifications endorsed by the authority, which included using Green Belt land. In dismissing the application, the Administrative Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim under s 113(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.