Latest Cases

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. The claimant was awarded £1,545 in general damages after suffering from a flame burn injury to the dorsal aspect of the first web space of the left hand, resulting in scarring (pigmentation damage) to an area measuring 4 cm x 3.8 cm. The burn took one month to heal, and two years post-accident there was minimal discoloration. 

European Union – Trade marls. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier (Louis Vuitton) requesting that the Court set aside the judgment in Vuitton Malletier v OHIM: Case T‑237/10 in so far as the General Court of the European Union had thereby dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to an application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by Friis Group International Aps in respect of the registration of a figurative sign owned by Louis Vuitton which Louis Vuitton had sought to register as a Community trade mark. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. A child, aged nine, had been cared for all his life by his grandparents in Lithuania, while his mother lived in Northern Ireland. The mother returned to Lithuania and snatched the child from the grandmother and returned to Northern Ireland. The High Court in Northern Ireland refused the grandparents' application for a declaration that the child had been wrongfully retained in Northern Ireland. The Court of Appeal dismissed the grandparents appeal. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, art 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 was to be interpreted to include a strictly limited category of inchoate rights of custody. On the facts, the grandmother's status had constituted 'rights of custody' in relation to the child, for the purpose of the Convention and Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. In a personal injury action where primary liability was admitted by the first defendant (D1), the court had to decide the issue of contributory negliglence and apportionment of liability. The defendant who had taken part in the proceedings was the second defendant (D2) who were the insurers concerned under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Queen's Bench Division held that the responsibility for the accident was 60% D1 40% the claimant. The claimant was, therefore, entitled to damages representing 60% of the full value of his claim. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendants challenged the judge's order that, under the terms of a worldwide freezing order, non-party companies could not dispose of, charge or otherwise deal with specified assets without giving notice to the claimant's solicitors. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal held that it could not be asserted that the language of the standard form freezing order was either intended to have the effect or had had the effect of bringing within the definition of a defendant's assets, the assets of a company which he controlled and such assets were not 'directly affected' by such an order. However, there had been ample justification for imposing the order on the judge's alternative reasoning. 

European Union – Conservation of natural habitats. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of art 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43 (on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). The request had been made in proceedings between T.C. Briels and Others and the Netherlands Minister for Infrastructure and the Environment concerning a project for widening a specific motorway. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The claimant tenant exercised a break clause in its lease with the defendant landlords. The judge implied a term which enabled the tenant to get back that part of the advance payment of rent which related to a period after the break date by when the lease would have been terminated. The landlords appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the correct inference to draw was that the parties had proceeded on the basis that the loss from a payment of rent for the broken period should lie where it fell. 

Arbitration – Award. The parties entered into agreements by which the defendant was to act as a global placement agent for the claimant, with a view to raising capital for claimant's real estate fund. The claimant purported to terminate the agreements for alleged breach by the defendant. A dispute over the payment of fees to the defendant was referred to arbitration. The arbitration tribunal considered a post-hearing submission by defendant and found its favour. The claimant appealed under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Commercial Court, allowing the appeal in part, held that the tribunal had erred in dealing with an issue of which the claimant had had no notice and no opportunity to address. 

Family proceedings – Care proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Cicil Division, in refusing permission to appeal findings of fact in care proceedings arising out of alleged serious sexual abuse, held that the findings of fact that the judge had made had been properly open to her on the evidence, and her judgment had been properly reasoned in reaching those conclusions. The court also raised concerns regarding the use of split hearings, the ambit of fact-finding hearings and the difficulty in obtaining accurate records of earlier judgments. 

Extradition – Discharge of fugitive. The district judge, having accepted the judicial authority's assurance that the mandatory death sentence would not be carried out, refused to order the respondent's extradition to Ghana to face trial for murder, as it would be incompatible with his rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judicial authority appealed. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not been entitled to reject the specific assurance and that the mere fact that the death sentence would be imposed, by itself, did not impose a bar on extradition. However, the respondent would face treatment which would be inhuman and degrading to him, despite the assurance given, particularly given his mental health.