Latest Cases

Court-Martial – Judge-Advocate. The defendants were convicted of negligently performing his duty following the first defendant's discharge of a round from a general purpose machine, which occasioned death. They were sentenced to a term of 21 months' service detention for the first defendant and 14 months for the second defendant, and dismissal from the service. The first defendant appealed against conviction and both defendants appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the first defendant's appeal against conviction. However, it reduced the sentences to 15 months' detention for the first defendant and 12 months' detention for the second defendant. It further quashed the sentence of dismissal from the service and ordered the reduction to the rank of private soldier. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant was the patentee of a European patent for a tilting device for a seat back. The defendant manufactured a seat with a tilting back. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for patent infringement. The judge found that the defendant's seat did not infringe and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the short answer to the claimant's point was that the language of the claim did not support its construction. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance in the approach to be taken when defendants' representatives apply for leave to appeal or appeal against conviction and/or sentence in circumstances when the defendant has absconded during the criminal prosecution process. 

Company – Member. The claimant presented a petition for relief from unfair prejudice under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006. In January 2013, the judge allowed the individual defendants' application to strike out the claimant's petition in part. The claimant appealed and the defendants cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the first allegation struck out could not properly be determined without hearing evidence and making findings of fact. Further, the claimant had not unreasonably refused an offer to buy out his shares making the petition an abuse of process. However, the claimant would be required to provide further particulars. 

Personal injury – Damages. Court of Session: In an action for damages for a lower back injury the pursuer suffered after falling down a flight of stairs in the course of her employment, the court awarded total damages of £89,302, including £18,000 for solatium, £35,397 for past wage loss, £6,000 for future wage loss, and £4,400 (past) and £14,720 (future) for necessary services rendered to her by her daughter. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. MN was severely disabled and had been living in an adult facility, RCH, which provided care funded by ACCG. MN's parents requested that ACCG fund a care package that enabled MN to visit his family home, and enabled his mother to become involved in his intimate care. ACCG refused, and sought an order from the Court of Protection that MN reside in accommodation and receive contact with his parents as directed by ACCG. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to look at all potential options in a best interests analysis, but was limited to those available. Where a public body had breached Convention rights in the options it had made available, a challenge could be made under s 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. If that application was successful, it was in those exceptional circumstances that the court might look at other options. In the circumstances of the instant case, the contact plan submitted by ACCG was in MN's best interests. 

Practice – Service. The claimant brought a claim for trade mark infringement. After more than 18 months had elapsed, there was no significant progress in the action. The Chancery Division held that there was little evidence to support the claimant's application, under CPR 7.6(3), for a retrospective extension of time to serve a claim form, which a judge had found not to have been served. Further, the claimant had not shown sufficient good reason to engage CPR 6.15 or CPR 6.27. It followed that the court's discretion would not be exercised to make a retrospective order under the CPR. 

Employment – Wrongful dismissal. The employee was dismissed under a term in his contract (the clause) that stipulated that any breach of the customer or employer's security rules would result in his dismissal. He successfully brought proceedings for unfair and wrongful dismissal. The employer appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, in dismissing the appeal, that the clause only applied to a breach that was serious and wilful or grossly negligent, applying normal principles of employment law. Further, the process by which the employee had been dismissed had been unfair. 

Ward of court – Jurisdiction. The police had referred a family, which included six children, to the local authority following alleged domestic violence. Upon the authority's involvement, the parents sent three of their children abroad without supervision. The authority secured an order for their return, but the parents refused to comply. The Family Division invoked its inherent jurisdiction and attached penal notices to the orders. The authority issued an application in the Family Division to commit the parents to prison for contempt of court. Both parents were found to be in contempt of court in circumstances where the father knew where the children were but had refused to secure their return and the mother had failed to be open and co-operative. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant was a Greek national detained by the defendant between 28 May and 5 December 2006, pursuant to a deportation order made on 20 March 2006, which was later revoked. He claimed damages for false imprisonment, on the basis that, following the implementation of Directive (EC) 2004/38 by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2000/1813, with effect from 30 April 2006, he could only be removed from the UK 'on imperative grounds of public security' which were never established in his case. The Queen's Bench Division upheld that claim and agreed with the submissions of the claimant.