Latest Cases

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant firm of solicitors to represent her in divorce proceedings. The claimant completed a Form E, but her income had subsequently fallen over a period of four months. The defendants instructed counsel but failed to inform him of the fall in the claimant's income, and instead provided details of higher earnings. The ancillary relief proceedings were settled outside court, and the settlement was largely in line with the claimant's Calderbank offer that had been drafted in conference on counsel's advice. The claimant issued proceedings seeking damages for professional negligence against the defendants, based on their failure to inform counsel of the claimant's fall in income. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that there was no causative potency to the allegation, which had not been pleaded consistently during trial. 

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant, a 40 year old woman in good health, developed upper leg pain which led to several operations and an eventual amputation. The claimant brought an action in negligence against the relevant NHS Trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been no negligent delay in getting the claimant to theatre. Further there had been no inadequate remedial surgery carried out and finally there had been no negligent advice as to available reconstructive options once necrotising myositis had been overcome, leading to an unnecessary through-knee amputation. 

Confidential information – Injunction against disclosure of information. The claimants were granted injunctions, restraining the defendants using their confidential information. The defendants appealed on the basis that the parties' confidentiality agreement did not continue once a subcontract had been entered and that damages were an adequate remedy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly found that the confidentiality agreement continued after the subcontract and that the relief granted had been a matter within the discretion of the judge with which the court would not interfere. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant prisoner's application for judicial review of decisions concerning his recall to prison and the refusal to rescind that decision holding that in the instant case, the recall had not been unlawful. 

Criminal evidence – Sufficiency of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal by an appellant who was found guilty of a sub-head of a charge of conspiracy (which was found not proven) relating to the transfer of money for the purposes of terrorism the court rejected two grounds of appeal, one directed at the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the sub-head as a stand-alone charge and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in that respect, and the other directed at the appropriateness/adequacy of the manner in which the trial judge and the Crown dealt with the evidence of the appellant's brother. 

Costs – Order for costs. The parties had settled the claimant's proceedings against the defendant for damages. The recorder ordered the defendant to pay costs on the standard basis, as the claimant had unreasonably failed to accept settlement offers. The defendant appealed on the grounds that the recorder had failed to consider that earlier offers had been unreasonably refused and to reduce the costs payable for the claimant's dishonesty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the recorder's errors had vitiated his exercise of discretion with respect to an earlier offer, but that he had not prejudiced the costs judge's determination with respect to the claimant's dishonesty. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Production of documents. Following trial in a patents case, the claimant company made an application for disclosure of documents allegedly known to B, a former employee of the second defendant company, who at the instant time worked for the claimant, but had formerly been prevented from disclosing the documents by confidentiality agreements. The Patents Court held that it would be proportionate to allow disclosure, limited to be material gathered by B. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant company issued proceedings against the defendant companies for infringement of its three patents in respect of a seating system. The judge held that two patents had not been infringed and that there had been a threat to infringe the third. He further rejected the appeal from the decision of the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office alleging that two patents were a nullity because the claimant either never designated the UK on its application form or had withdrawn any such designation. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the two patents had not been infringed, and that the third patent was inventive and not invalid for added matter. Further, the validity of one patent based on the process of examination and grant in the European Patent Office was not open to challenge in the English courts. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was a regulated mutual fund it sought to purchase a site and develop it by a team supplied by the defendants. The claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of the site, planning consent for which had been given in principle for the development of the 155 flats together with 171 parking places. It was a term of the contract that if planning permission was not granted by 31 December 2006, either party would be entitled to rescind the contract and the deposit would be repaid to the claimant with interest. The claimant brought an action in contract and tort against the defendants. The Technology and Construction Court refused largely to strike out the claim on the basis that it was not fanciful and it could not be determined on a summary application whether the claimants claim was stature barred. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Family Division dismissed an application by the applicant mother for the respondent father to be committed to prison for contempt of court for a further period for his breach of a range of orders requiring him to reveal the whereabouts of the child in Egypt and to procure her return to England. There was no evidence that the father had committed any criminal offence under the law of England and Wales, and at the time of the instant hearing the father had served the equivalent of twice the maximum term for contempt of court provided for by s 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In those circumstances, it would not be proportionate or justifiable, nor, therefore, lawful, to commit the father to a yet further term of imprisonment.