Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division endorsed an agreed order for the management of parental responsibility of the third respondent child born as a result of a partial surrogacy agreement. 

Family proceedings – Evidence. A local authority instituted care proceedings in respect of a seven-year-old child with Type 1 diabetes, alleging that the mother had caused the child physical and emotional harm by giving him excessive doses of insulin, which had caused him to suffer hypoglycaemic episodes. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, the threshold criteria had been established. 

Shipping – Limitation of liability. The appeal raised interesting questions as to whether it was, in principle, possible to constitute a limitation fund under the International Convention on Limitation for Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, which was scheduled to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, by means of a guarantee in the form of a letter of undertaking provided by a protection and indemnity club. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the proper construction of art 11.2 of the Convention, it was. 

Patent – Threats of infringement proceedings. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court considered a claim brought to restrain groundless threats of proceedings for infringement of a patent. In allowing the claim and dismissing the defendant's counterclaim, it held that threats had been made and that, on its true construction, the claimant's products did not infringe the defendant's patent. 

European Union – Value added tax. In considering whether the Finance (No 2) Act 2005 infringed the European Union principle of equal treatment, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the introduction of an unjust enrichment defence with retroactive effect was compatible with EU law. The claimant's appeal concerning overpayment of VAT was dismissed, as the date of the claim was an essential characteristic in the context of the claim. Accordingly, a claim issued after the 2005 Act pertaining to periods before its introduction was not relevantly similar to a claim issued before the 2005 Act pertaining to the same period. 

Practice – Striking out. In the course of proceedings, the claimant obtained an expert report from D. D subsequently told the claimant that he was retiring and would not appear in the case. The claimant waited several months before informing the other parties of D's retirement, and sought to adduce a new expert report from Y. The deputy master allowed Y's report to be adduced. The defendant bank appealed, seeking for the claim to be struck out. The Chancery Division held that, while the appeal would not be allowed, the claimant would be required to rely on D's report, even though D might choose not to attend court. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendants' appeal against conviction for conspiracy, together and with other persons, to be concerned in the production of a controlled drug, namely cannabis, by another in contravention of s 4(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The defendants' role in the conspiracy had been to make and supply bespoke equipment for the purpose of supplying cannabis farms with the said equipment throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland, which were used to assist in the cannabis growing process. The defendants, amongst other things, denied that they could be involved in such a conspiracy due to their not knowing or caring what the equipment would be used for. That argument was rejected and the convictions were concluded as safe. 

Expenses – Protective expenses order. Court of Session: Granting a motion by an appellant, who had appealed against a local authority's decision to grant planning permission for the erection of two wind turbines near her home, seeking a protective expenses order to limit her potential liability in expenses, the court concluded that a protective expenses order under Rule of Court 58A was justified and gave some guidance on procedural issues. 

Practice – Adjournment of proceedings. The judge had refused to adjourn proceedings on liability, had granted the claimant permission to amend his claim and entered judgment for the claimant. The defendants appealed on the basis that the judge's decisions had been unfair. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had not attached proper weight to the fundamental point that the hearing had only been listed for remedies. Further, that the claimant had wished to proceed on an issue of law that had not been pleaded. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Secretary of State had withdrawn the claimant's recognition as a producer organisation for the purposes of the European Union Common Agricultural policy. The claimant was granted permission to bring judicial review proceedings but also utilised the statutory appeals procedure. The statutory appeal was successful and the judicial review was discontinued by consent. The claimant sought its costs of the judicial review. The judge refused on the ground that the statutory appeal had succeeded on a different ground to that claimed in the judicial review so it could not be said that the claimant would have succeeded in its claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal because, although the end result of the statutory appeal had been what the claimant had sought through judicial review, that had not been enough to enable the claimant to be treated as the successful party.