Latest Cases

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. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant, a pedestrian, sustained soft tissue injuries to the chest wall and the right knee, and consequential psychological symptoms, including a fear of crossing the road, after being struck by a vehicle. She was awarded damages of £4,500 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

Divorce – Domicile. The Family Division held that the courts of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction to entertain the applicant husband's divorce petition as the respondent wife had not been domiciled in England at the time that the husband issued his petition. Even if the wife had obtained a domicile of choice in England following her marriage, she had not retained it at the date of the husband's divorce petition. 

Personal Injury. The Claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to the low back with associated paraesthesia into the left leg. He was awarded damages of £2,750 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. 

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. 

Barrister – Regulation. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant barrister's application for judicial review of the defendant legal ombudsman's decision to uphold the interested party's complaint of poor service received from the claimant. The ombudsman's decision had been irrational and had to be quashed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants were convicted and sentenced in the United Kingdom for a conspiracy to defraud, involving loss caused to UK victims from essentially the same conduct as alleged in a United States indictment, for which their extradition was sought. The judge sent the appellants' cases to the Secretary of State for her decision as to whether to extradite. The appellants appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been right to hold that there had been no double jeopardy, although not on the basis that he had stated and that it was not an abuse of process to seek extradition. 

Declaration – Procedure. The Family Division granted the applicant NHS Foundation Trust's application to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for declaratory relief in relation to serious medical treatment for the first respondent, AA. In the instant case, there had been unanimity amongst the clinicians that the proposed treatment was the safest option for AA. It had been self-evident that AA had lacked the capacity to take the medical decision for herself and the case made by the NHS Trust had been compelling. 

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The employee had made what he alleged was a protected disclosure. Disciplinary proceedings had been commenced against him and he had been threatened with defamation proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings and allegations were withdrawn. The employee commenced proceedings alleging, among other things, that he had been a victimised whistleblower. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) struck out his claim on the basis that he had issued proceedings out of time. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the EAT's determination as, on the evidence, the claim had been brought out of time. 

Town and country planning – Established use. The instant proceedings arose out of an application by the interested party for a certificate of lawful use for ancillary vehicular parking and the decision of the defendant local authority to issue a certificate stating that use of the land for vehicular parking (not simply for ancillary parking) was lawful. Allowing the claim for judicial review, the Administrative Court held that an authority had power under s 191 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to substitute a description of existing lawful use for the use set out in an application providing that the use as set out in the substitute description had been carried out continuously for a period of ten years or more. However, in the instant case the authority had erred as it had not considered whether the land in question had been used for parking, rather than ancillary parking for a continuous period of ten years or more.