Latest Cases

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The claimant widow of the deceased sought a declaration that it was lawful for the sperm of the deceased to be stored beyond 2015, so that it could be used by her for the purposes of conceiving children or a child. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos and Gametes) Regulations 2009, SI 2009/1582 regarding written consent from a deceased had not been complied with due to an oversight at the clinic where the sperm was being stored. The Family Division relied on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to override the strict meaning of the Regulations and allow the sperm to be stored further. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant local resident's challenge to the defendant local authority's decision to remove an hours of use condition on an all weather playing area as the authority's decision could not properly be characterised as 

Prison – Prisoner. The claimant prisoner sought, by way of judicial review, to challenge the lawfulness of guidance issued by the defendant Parole Board (PB) to its panels on the test to be applied when considering the re-release after recall to custody of a prisoner who was serving a determinate sentence of imprisonment. Dismissing the claim, the Divisional Court held that when exercising its power under s 255C(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the test that the PB should apply had been the statutory test of whether the PB was satisfied that it was not necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison. 

Civil procedure – Expenses. Court of Session: After allowing a pursuer to withdraw his motion to find three people in contempt of court, the court held that the contempt application was extraordinarily ill‑advised as to substance, timing and the terms in which it was expressed, that it was competent to make an award of expenses against the pursuer personally and that it was reasonable to do so. 

Judgment – Default judgment. The master refused the first defendant's application, under CPR 13.3, to set aside default judgment entered for the claimant. The first defendant appealed on the basis that the delay was not excessive and had included a period in which it sought the claimant's consent to set it aside. The claimant contended that those contentions had no validity, especially in the light of the new regime that implemented the Jackson proposals (the new regime). The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the new regime applied to the special rules under CPR Pt 13 and that there had been an excessive delay. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in deciding appeals against sentences in a number of cases involving, amongst other things, sexual, violent and arson offences, provided guidance on the approach a court should take when considering whether to impose a sentence under the dangerous offenders provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended by Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment Offenders Act 2003. 

Contract – Offer and acceptance. The parties entered a distribution agreement in respect of the 'Virulite device' for the elimination of cold sores. The agreement was terminated by the defendant by notice. The claimant disputed the defendant's entitlement to terminate the agreement and claimed substantial damages. The defendant justified their termination on the grounds of a contractual variation. The Queen's Bench Division held that, applying established law, there had been a contractual variation and accordingly the defendant was not entitled to terminate the agreement on 31 January 2011. Its purported termination amounted to a repudiatory breach which the claimant had been entitled to accept. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had been convicted after trial of the murder of a 17 year old youth, who was stabbed 14 times in the back. The defendant sought to appeal against his conviction contending it was unsafe due to remarks made by counsel for his co-accused at the end of the trial and the directions the judge had given to the jury. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal dismissed each of his grounds and held, amongst other things, that there was such substantial evidence against the defendant that his conviction was safe. 

Trade mark – Infringement. Following a finding for the claimants in a case of trade mark infringement, the Chancery Division considered the taking of an account pursuant to the order made below. It held that the defendants would be obliged to account to the claimants for a range of profits. 

Road traffic – Accident. When the claimants were on holiday in Portugal, they were struck by a driver who was insured by the defendants. The second claimant died and the first claimant sustained serious injury. The claimants brought a case and liability was disputed by the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants had made the decision to cross the road safely and that in any event the defendant had been travelling very fast. The claimants therefore succeeded on liability and there was no contributory negligence.