Latest Cases

Trade mark – Registration. The Chancery Division considered a dispute regarding trade marks concerned with the martial art Shorinji Kempo. It held that, on the evidence, that the claimant's appeal against the registering of the defendant's trade mark would be dismissed on the grounds that, among other things, the defendant's mark was not similar to an earlier mark owned by the claimant. 

Criminal law – Intention. The defendants were convicted of attempted murder and two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. They appealed against conviction on the basis that it was not possible to seek a conviction for two different offences of specific intent which had an identical actus reus and mens rea. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that within the defendants' intention to kill lay an intention to cause really serious physical harm. Proof of the mens rea for attempted murder, by definition, involved proof that the mens rea for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The defendant construction company employed the claimant under a number of separate orders to undertake tendered works for the refurbishment of properties. The claimant contended that all of the sub-contract works were ordered under one overarching order. However, the defendant contended that the main order had never been accepted by the claimant and that the all works had been undertaken under separate contracts. An adjudicator, having found that he had jurisdiction, made an award in favour of the claimant. The claimant sought to enforce the award. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the facts, the adjudicator had had no jurisdiction to decide the disputes arising under the separate contracts, each with different terms and subject matter. It followed that the claimant was unable to enforce the adjudicator's award in its favour. 

Family proceedings – Care. The mother of a six-year-old boy made allegations about the father. In the course of care proceedings, the judge made factual findings against the parents. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, found that, although the judge had relied on an interview with the boy, arguably failing to meet achieving best evidence interview guidance, the case had turned on the mother's reliability. There was nothing to undermine the judge's conclusions, given that he had had the parents before him and there had been no detectable error in the judge's approach to the law or the material that had been put before him. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants sought the continuation of a freezing order that had been made against the defendants to freeze money that could potentially have been used to cover the claimants' costs. The claimants made an application, seeking to have the freezing order extended. The Chancery Division held that the order would not be continued, as the court had never had jurisdiction to make a freezing order to secure the rights which the claimants might in due course acquire pursuant to an order for costs. Consequently, the order would not be continued and the action dismissed. 

Housing – Persons in need of care and attention. Philip suffered a number of disabilities and had, since a young age been in foster care pursuant to the Children Act 1989. Although he had lived with his carers in South Gloucestershire, the local authority that had had responsibility for providing his care had been Wiltshire. As Philip approached the age of 18, questions were raised as to which authority would be responsible for the provision of his care pursuant to s 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, it having previously been determined that he should live as close as possible to his family in Cornwall. On turning 18, he moved to residential accommodation in Somerset. The Secretary of State had determined that Philip's place of ordinary residence was Cornwall. Cornwall Council had unsuccessfully sought judicial review of that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal, finding that the Secretary of State had applied the wrong test. On remaking the decision, the court found that South Gloucestershire had been Philip's place of ordinary residence. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had originally travelled to Italy and sought asylum or refugee status, but had left Italy and arrived in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State determined that they should be returned to Italy and certified their claims as clearly unfounded. The appellants had all sought judicial review of those decisions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had concluded, based on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and other cases: C-411/10 and C-493/10 [2012] All ER (EC) 1011 (NS), that the sole ground on which a second state was required to exercise its power under art 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation to entertain a re-application for asylum or humanitarian protection, and to refrain from returning the applicant to the state of first arrival, was that the source of risk to the applicant was a systemic deficiency, known to the former, in the latter's asylum or reception procedures. On the facts, the situation in Italy had not reached that mark. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred and misinterpreted NS. The correct test had remained that in Soering v United Kingdom (Application 14038/88)[1989] ECHR 14038/88. 

Criminal evidence – Confession. The appellant was convicted of assault. At the appellant's trial, the only evidence relied upon by the Crown was a confession that the appellant had made during the course of interview (the confession). She applied to exclude that evidence, but the judge rejected that application. Dismissing her appeal by way of case stated, the Administrative Court held that the judge had been correct to: (i) reject the submission that the appellant had not properly or adequately been informed of her right to legal advice; (ii) to find that the interviewing police officer had been entitled to come to the conclusion that the appellant had in all respects been fit to be interviewed; and (iii) to find that, accordingly, the confession evidence of the appellant had in all respects been both reliable and fair and that neither s 76 nor s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had applied to exclude the confession. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had been convicted on one sample count of buggery (count 3) and three other counts of buggery, including count 5, which was a specimen count. The defendant appealed against conviction for count 3 claiming, amongst other things, inconsistency of verdicts considering, in particular, the acquittal on count 5. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the jury had been entitled to reach the verdicts they had reached based upon the entirely proper directions given by the trial judge. 

Education – Teacher. The appellant teacher appealed against the imposition of a prohibition order with no provision for review, imposed following his conviction of, among other things, having a bladed article, a s 4 Public Order Act 1986 offence and dangerous driving. The Administrative Court dismissed his application for judicial review as the appellant had been unable to demonstrate that his case had been dealt with in a way that was statistically out of kilter with other decisions.