Latest Cases

Employment – Redundancy. The Employment Appeal, in allowing the employee's appeal in a claim for age discrimination, held that a local authority had not been required by an enactment to discriminate between the employee and younger dismissed employees in respect of redundancy pay. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Globosat Programadora Ltda (Globosat) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Globosat and Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV) concerning the application by Sport TV for registration of a word sign 'SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL' as a Community trade mark. 

Claimant companies owning land – Claimants leasing land to third party. The claimant companies owned land that they leased to a company which sought to carry out preliminary drilling in preparation for 'fracking' excavations. The second and fifth defendants were individuals staying on the land as part of a protest against fracking. The claimants applied for possession of the land. The Chancery Division held that the claimants owned the land in question, and that the rights of the defendants under the European Convention on Human Rights had not been infringed by the claimants' application for possession. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that evidence of gunshot residue had been properly admitted and that, although the judge's directions on that evidence could have been better crafted, there had been no misdirection. Further, the judge's directions as a whole had been adequate and no alibi direction had been necessary. The judge had correctly excluded evidence of an incident in an alleged blood feud as unconnected with subsequent incidents and the killing of the deceased. 

Misrepresentation – Negligent misrepresentation. The claimant invested £200,000 in a private company incorporated by the defendant to conduct further clinical trials of a new class of drug for the treatment hepatitis and a range of sexually transmitted diseases. She brought a claim, alleging that she had done so in reliance on negligent misstatement by the defendant. The Chancery Division held that the defendant was liable to the claimant for negligent misrepresentation by reason of the material omissions from a document issued by the directors of the company about the use of the investment proceeds. Damages were assessed in the sum of £200,000. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the district judge's decision to order his extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the respondent Italian judicial authority. The offence charged had not necessarily been an offence under the law of England and Wales and accordingly, the dual criminality requirement of s 64(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 had not been satisfied to the relevant standard. Further, in the instant case the judgment of the European Court in Torreggiani v Italy (2013) app 43517, 8 January 2013, together with the acknowledgement of a continuing systemic problem in the Italian prison system, had rebutted the presumption of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights which would normally arise in the case of a member state. That had raised substantial grounds for believing that there had been a real risk of treatment contrary to art 3 of the Convention and the judicial authority had not produced sufficient material to dispel that belief. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant's claim for damages for alleged medical negligence had been struck out on the basis that it did not have a real prospect of success. Her application to reinstate the claim, and amend the particulars of claim, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed her appeal as the judge had been wrong to find that the amended claim had had no real prospect of success. 

Patent – European Patent Office. Samsung applied for an adjournment of its appeal against the revocation of its patents pending the determination of its applications to the European Patent Office for amendment of the patent claims. Apple sought an order requiring Samsung to elect between the appeal and the amendment applications. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in granting the adjournment, held that there was no prohibition on the filing of an amendment application between a first instance judgment and appeal. Apple's application fell to be dismissed because it could not be said Samsung's pursuit of the amendment applications necessarily meant that the appeal proceedings constituted an abuse of process. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The judge refused to vary a freezing order against the defendant so as to permit him to repay a loan made by his daughter, E and granted the claimant companies a final third party debt order with respect to the defendant's accounts. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that a proper exercise of the judicial discretion, to achieve an equitable outcome, required any third party debt order in the claimants' favour to be subject to a proviso, which required repayment of the debt owed to E prior to the order becoming final. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant Afghani national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) (UT) to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the defendant Secretary of State to grant him asylum or humanitarian protection on the grounds that it would be safe for him to return to Afghanistan. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the UT had not been unaware of the nature of the appellant's case or of the evidence of threatening letters sent to the appellant by radical Islamic groups and his failure to respond to them. The UT had not made an error of law in reaching its decision.