Latest Cases

Electricity – Wayleave. The respondent had entered into a contract to sell land for development which was conditional on the removal of an overhead power line. The appellant electricity company obtained a statutory wayleave in respect of the power line and the conditional contract fell away. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) assessed the compensation payable to the respondent under para 7 of Sch 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 on the basis of the value of the land under the contract minus the nominal value of the land as at the date of the wayleave. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the tribunal had been correct in the basis upon which it had assessed compensation. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The claimant and defendant had collided on a country road. The defendant lorry driver had been two feet over on the claimant's side of the road. The district judge found that the claimant had been 40% contributory negligent because, if she had been driving slower, the accident would not have happened. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal as the judge had not considered whether the claimant would have expected to meet an oncoming lorry so far over on her side of the road. She could not have been blamed for having failed to foresee that. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed a defendant's appeal against sentence as wholly without merit in circumstances where the defendant had pleaded guilty, shortly before trial, to one count of misconduct in public office and received a sentence of seven years' imprisonment. The defendant had used his position as a senior official for the United Kingdom Border Agency's Asylum Screening Unit to alter and destroy Home Office immigration records and allow 44 individuals from Nigeria to be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK through the production of 14 false Home Office letters. 

Probate – Grant. The deceased had moved to Spain 18 years prior to his death, and had executed two wills. Under the first, he left his residuary estate in Spain to the fourth defendant. Under the second, he left his residuary estate outside of Spain to the British National Party (BNP). In giving directions as to the distribution of the estate under a Pt 8 claim, the Chancery Division held that it would have been wrong to direct the executor to make a distribution of the estate to the BNP under Pt IV of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Instead, he directed that the estate be paid out to the fourth and fifth defendants under intestacy. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered a claim for infringement of a patent concerning milling cutting tools for high feed face milling. The court held that, on the evidence, two inserts made by the defendant company did not infringe the claimant company's patent. However, on the evidence, the defendant's counterclaim for obviousness would succeed, since the claimant's patent lacked inventive step in the light of the prior art. 

Trinidad and Tobago – Civil Proceedings Rules. The judge had, under Civil Proceedings Rule 26.2, struck out the claimant's statement of case on the ground that the claimant had failed to respond positively to the defendants' request for details of the events that had given rise to the proceedings. The Court of Appeal had allowed the claimant's appeal as the judge had been wrong to hold that he could not, in particular under r 26.1(1)(w), order particulars of a statement of case at the stage when the matter had been before him. The Privy Council dismissed the defendants' appeal as the court's express discretion whether to strike out, under r 26.2, meant that the judge had to consider alternatives to strike out, such as ordering the claimant to serve further details or an amended statement of case. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant had arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. There was a delay of almost ten years in processing his application. He was granted discretionary leave to remain for three years. He sought judicial review of that decision. The Administrative Court held that there was no specific policy which had created an exception to the normal grant of discretionary leave to remain, not indefinite leave to remain, where an applicant had been present in the UK for a long time awaiting a decision of the Secretary of State. The claimant's circumstances had not been exceptional such as to have invoked the Secretary of State's residual discretion to depart from the Immigration Rules. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Sierra Leonean national sought by way of judicial review to challenge the validity of a deportation order signed by the first defendant Secretary of State and his detention pursuant to that order. He also sought judicial review of the second defendant Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber)'s decision to refuse him permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) (FTT) to refuse him permission to appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to grant him an EEA residence card. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that the deportation order had not been invalid because the claimant had been outside the United Kingdom when it had been signed. Further, at no point had the claimant's detention been or become unlawful. Finally, art 27 of Directive (EC) 2005/38 did not extend to 'other family members' (OFMSs), such as the claimant. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant company had brought a claim for infringement of its European Union patents, and the judge had held that claimant won on validity of both patents and on infringement on one of the defendant company's systems. In relation to consequential matters, the judge ruled that the claimant was entitled to a final injunction stayed until the later of the determination of the question of whether the defendant's modified system infringed the one of the EU patents, and any appeal. The judge declined to make an order for disclosure of fuller information against the defendant but left it open to the claimant to request it on the claimant's risk as to costs. He made an order that the defendant pay 40% of the claimant's costs, taking all matters of the instant case into account, and ordered an interim award of £430,000. 

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant tripped over a piece of permanent plant (a pipe) in the defendant's factory and brought a claim in personal injury based on Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The trial judge found that the pipe did not pose any danger to anyone and dismissed the claim. On appeal the Queen's Bench upheld that decision of the trial judge on the basis that the pipe was part of the plant and was where it always had been.