Latest Cases

Personal Injury. The Claimant suffered neck and shoulder pain as a result of a road traffic accident when the stationary vehicle in which she was travelling was struck in the rear by the defendant's vehicle. She was awarded damages of £1,800 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Practice – Family proceedings. In an application for financial relief the Family Division held in a preliminary ruling that shares in a company remained with the husband and were available to any creditors, accordingly, the intervener's claim for a declaration that the shares were held on trust for him failed. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on two separate actions brought by Diset, SA (Diset) against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Mega), in respect of Mega's respective applications to register a figurative mark 'MAGNEXT' and a word sign 'MAGNEXT' as Community trade marks. 

Damages – Measure of damages. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant owner of a vessel had suffered an immediate and direct loss on the occurrence of the damage to the vessel, and that that loss had not been avoided or mitigated by the receipt by the claimant of a government grant in respect of the claimant decommissioning the vessel. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held, amongst other things, that in the correct interpretation of reg 38(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007, the words 'knowingly' and 'permit' related to knowledge of the facts and not as to the existence and scope of the permission or conditions of a licence. The prosecution did not have to show that a defendant knew that the matters of which it was aware were not permitted. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant suffered a soft tissue injury to his neck as the result of a road traffic accident. He was awarded damages of £2,500 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 offended arts 5, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court dismissed her claim and she appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that art 5 of the Convention had no application and no breach of art 14 of the Convention had been established. Further, s 60 of the Act was not arbitrary, it was in accordance with the law and justified pursuant to art 8(2) of the Convention. 

Sentence – Appeal. The defendants, IA aged 84 and TA aged 68, were husband and wife and had both been sentenced, amongst other things, to two counts of trafficking a person into the United Kingdom for exploitation and received concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment. IA had also been sentenced to 13 counts of rape and received concurrent sentences of 13 years' imprisonment. Accordingly, TA had received a total sentence of five years' imprisonment and IA a total sentence of 13 years' imprisonment. The judge at the contested trials had applied a reduction in the sentences of approximately one-third primarily due to the ages and ill health of the defendants. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the Attorney General's application to refer the sentences, held that those sentences were unduly lenient. The sentences were quashed and TA received a total sentence of six years' imprisonment whilst IA received a total sentence of 15 years' imprisonment. 

Company – Director. The claimants brought proceedings seeking the transfer of ownership of a European patent, and associated applications and patents. They alleged that certain defendants, whilst acting as de facto directors of the first claimant company, had, through the first defendant, applied for the patent in the name of another company, allegedly in breach of agreements with the claimants. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court dismissed the claims where there was no evidence that the first three defendants had acted as de facto directors of the first claimant company and, accordingly, that there had been no breach of fiduciary duties. Further, there was no evidence of binding agreements as alleged. 

Extradition – Hearing. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision to extradite him pursuant to s 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The district judge had been correct in his conclusion that the respondent was a judicial authority within the meaning of s 2 of the Act. The judgment in Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania v Bucnys [2013] UKSC 71 could not be read as seeking to cast any doubt upon the conclusion reached in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] 4 All ER 1249 that a public prosecutor within a member state was a judicial authority. The effect of Bucnys had to be that the conclusion reached in Assange that a public authority was a judicial authority remained valid.