Latest Cases

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant bought a mountain bike from the defendant and sustained a serious injury following an accident. It was the claimant's allegation that there had been a defect in the bike as purchased and he brought an action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Causation was in issue between the parties as the defendant denied that there had been a defect in the bike when purchased. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was appropriate to infer on the expert evidence that there had been nothing defective about its design, assembly or the steel from which it had been made and that the claimant's case would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The defendant Secretary of State announced to Parliament on 6 June 2013, that the level of support provided in cash to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers for the financial year 2013/2014 should remain frozen at the rates which had applied since 2011. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had erroneously failed to take into account in reaching her decision various categories of essential living needs which fell to be taken into account in setting the level of cash provided pursuant to s 96(1)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling in two actions, Cases C‑293/12 and C‑594/12 concerning the validity of Directive (EC) 2006/24, and ruled that it was invalid. In C-293/12, the request had concerned the legality of Irish national legislative and administrative measures concerning the retention of data relating to electronic communications. In C-594/12, the request had concerned constitutional actions regarding the compatibility with the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law of the law transposing Directive 2006/24 into Austrian national law. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing an appeal against conviction for one count of theft, held that the circumstances of the case had not warranted a Turnbull direction (a reference to the case of R v Turnbull[1976] 3 All ER 549) when the jury had been directed to disregard evidence relating to the victim's identification of the evidence and to focus on CCTV footage and to determine whether the man they saw in the said footage was the man in the court, namely the defendant. In the circumstances, the conviction could not be considered unsafe. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Ferring BV (Ferring) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring and Tillotts Pharma AG (Tillotts) relating to the application by Tillotts for registration of the word sign 'OCTASA' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Farmaceutisk) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Farmaceutisk and Tillotts Pharma AG (Tillotts) relating to the application by Tillotts for registration of the word sign 'OCTASA' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The appellant company (Morgan) was the whistle-blower in a cartel. The European Commission held in a decision that the cartel had infringed European Community law. Several members of the cartel unsuccessfully appealed. The respondent companies (together, DB) sought to bring proceedings against Morgan for losses caused by the cartel. The issue arose as to whether DB's claims had been brought within the relevant two-year time limit, and from when that limit had started to run. The Supreme Court held that the time limit would run from the date when time had expired for an appeal by Morgan to the General Court, and hence the claim by DB had been brought out of time. 

Criminal law – Appeal. In an unsuccessful appeal against conviction and sentence where the defendant received a nine year sentence for one count of rape, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided guidance on the proper approach on deciding whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of a complainant relating to a 'relevant issue in the case' within the meaning of s 41(2) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. In the instant case it was held that the trial judge's ruling not to adduce certain evidence had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial and the nine year sentence he received was not manifestly excessive. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had been convicted of murder of a Korean language student after stabbing her three times in the back. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division after he contended that post-trial accounts of a prosecution witness and fresh evidence indicating someone else committed the murder rendered his own conviction unsafe. Upon analysis of the evidence, it was held that neither the cross-examination of the prosecution witness nor the other evidence led to the conclusion that someone other than the defendant committed the murder. Accordingly, the conviction was deemed safe. 

Sentence – Minimum period of imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of ten years. He applied for a reduction of that tariff. The Administrative Court held that, while the offender had continued to make very good progress in prison, on the evidence, it was not possible to conclude that his progress had been exceptional. The application was dismissed.