Latest Cases

Human rights – Fair trial. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the inability of four men to bring torture compensation claims against Saudi Arabia in the United Kingdom courts did not breach the right to a fair trial under art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Mental health – Prisoner. The claimant was detained under s 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 at a medium security hospital. Following an incident, he was referred for transfer to a high security hospital. Despite requests, the claimant's legal representative was not given the documents that were put before the panel and was not permitted to attend the hearing. Nevertheless, the claimant was given opportunities to put his side of events forward in meetings. His representative declined to make any representations before the panel meeting despite hearing an overview from the claimant. The claimant's transfer was approved, and he issued proceedings for judicial review. In allowing the defendant health trust's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on the evidence, there had not been a breach of common-law principles of procedural fairness. 

Mental health – Patient. The respondent was a patient under the Mental Health Act 1983. The NHS Trust responsible for the respondent applied to applied, pursuant to the 1983 Act (as amended), seeking authorisation and treatment of P's rectal bleeding. The Court of Protection found that the respondent did not have capacity and further the treatment was in his best interests. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG (Schuhhaus) against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) relating to opposition proceedings between Schuhhaus and Carrera SpA (Carrera) concerning the request by Schuhhaus for protection for the word mark 'Carrera panamericana'. 

Insolvency – Voluntary arrangement. In considering the claimants' appeal in respect of whether they were bound by the terms of a varied individual voluntary arrangement approved at a further creditors' meeting at which they had not voted, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the reference to 'further meetings' in s 262(4)(b) was a reference to further meetings under s 257 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The creditors for the purpose of the further meetings were those known to the nominee at the date on which those meetings were summoned. Accordingly, the statutory binding under s 260 of the 1986 Act had applied and the claimants were bound by the terms of the IVA in relation to their original debt and the costs due. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employee brought proceedings for alleged unpaid wages. That claim was dismissed, and she appealed. Abusive and threatening emails were sent to the employer and its representatives on the employee's behalf. The employee withdrew her appeal two weeks prior to the hearing, and the employer sought a costs order. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in the circumstances, the employee's appeal had had no prospect of success, and that it would be appropriate to make the costs order sought by the employer. 

Easement – Right of way. The defendants proposed to build a wall along the boundary of their land adjoining the claimants' land. The judge made declarations in the claimants' favour on the basis that the conveyance to the claimants had contained an express right of way to their land. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the conveyance had not limited the claimants' access to their land. Further, even with a vehicular entrance, the proposed wall would constitute an actionable interference with the claimants' right of way. 

Evidence – Without prejudice correspondence. The claimant bank claimed sums under a guarantee signed by the defendant. The judge held that the evidence was admissible, as the negotiations had not been conducted on a without prejudice basis, with the exception of one meeting. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he had. He had considered relevant matters, including that the parties had known how to expressly agree to negotiate on a without prejudice basis and there had been no trace of a legal dispute. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division held that the defendant department store retailer, House of Fraser, had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of the claimant's trade marks. Taking account of all factors, there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer between the trade marks and a logo used by House of Fraser. It followed that the trade marks were infringed. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that European Union law, and, in particular, the principle of effectiveness, did not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, making the right of an employee to seek a reassessment of the periods of service which should be taken into account in order to fix the reference date for the purposes of advancement subject to a 30-year limitation period, which had started to run from the conclusion of the agreement on the basis of which that reference date had been fixed or from the classification in an incorrect salary scale (see [37] of the judgment).