Latest Cases

Carriage by air – Carriage of passengers. The claimant wheel chair user issued proceedings for a declaration that the defendant tour operator and air carrier's treatment of him was in breach of its duty and damages for injury to his feelings. The judge granted the declaration, but found he was precluded from awarding damages by the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's decision and the claimant appealed. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the facts pleaded and found established that the claimant's claim had been squarely within the temporal scope of the Convention. Further, a claim for general damages for ill treatment in breach of equality laws or failure to provide properly for the needs of a disabled passenger should not be regarded as outside the substantive scope of the Convention. 

Unfair dismissal – Excluded classes of employment. The claimant sergeant issued unfair dismissal proceedings after he was dismissed from employment with the Redbridge Parks Police Service (the RPPS). The employment tribunal held that s 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not prevent the claimant from pursuing his claim, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed that decision and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that s 200 of the Act operated to deny the claimant any remedy for unfair dismissal, as the RPPS had constituted a 'constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment' within s 200(2)(a) of the Act. 

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. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. It was common ground that the confiscation order against the defendant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) had to be quashed, as the scheme established by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the CJA scheme) applied to the indictment period. The parties disputed whether the court had power to substitute a confiscation order under the CJA scheme. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that there had been no abuse of process by the prosecution making substitution inequitable. Accordingly, the court could make an order substituting the confiscation order under the 2002 Act, having received written and oral submissions on what the content of such an order should be. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants in two separate cases were mandate refugees who had been refused resettlement in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State as they had not met the criteria in her relevant policy. In the first case, the claimants' application for judicial review of the decision was refused, in the second case such an application was allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the categories of 'close family' in the policy applied to the person seeking resettlement and not to the family member already living in the UK. Further, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged by the policy and, if it was, then any interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim of immigration control. The respective appeals were dismissed. 

Building contract – Sub-contractors. The Technology and Construction Court considered two preliminary issues relating to a dispute as to the construction of a warehouse. The court held that the defendant company's causes of action in tort against two sub-contractors were time-barred by virtue of s 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, and that an attempt to assign the benefit of a warranty from one of the sub-contractors (Jubb) to the claimant company, without seeking Jubb's consent, did not give rise to a trust of the benefit of that warranty in favour of the claimant. 

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. 

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.