Latest Cases

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant company alleging infringement of the claimant's patent concerning a method of making a herbicide used in agriculture. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, granted the claimant an interim injunction to restrain the defendant company from selling its product in UK pending the trial. 

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that two patents were a nullity because the claimant either never designated the UK on its application form or had withdrawn any such designation.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. 

Parent and child – International child abduction. Court of Session: Refusing a father's petition for an order for the return to France of his two sons, aged 14 and 10, who had been brought to and wrongfully retained in Scotland by their mother, the court, having held that the children were settled in their new environment and objected to being returned, decided to exercise its discretion in favour of refusing to make an order returning them to France. 

Evidence – Interception of communications. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal against conviction by two defendants, holding that the trial judge had not erred in admitting evidence of telephone conversations from prison which had been intercepted and recorded as a result of the prison's general blanket policy. That policy had not constituted a breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Further, in the instant case proper authority had been given for the interception and recording of telephone calls at the prison; and the application process requesting the retention and use of the relevant material had been properly followed. Finally, the Crown had not failed in its duties of disclosure to a degree that had deprived the second defendant of a fair trial. 

Sentence – Appeal. The defendant had attempted to rape the deceased and following a struggled by the deceased he strangled her to death. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years. The Attorney General applied for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that the judge at sentencing had erred and ought to have set the minimum term at 30 years as the case had been such where the murder had involved sexual conduct. The minimum term of 25 years was quashed and substituted with a minimum term of 30 years. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with an offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and whose objection to the admissibility of the results of a search of a vehicle driven by him was repelled, the court held that the officers who detained the appellant and searched the vehicle, whilst purporting to act under s 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, did not have reasonable grounds to suspect that he was in possession of a controlled drug. 

Immigration – Asylum – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Refusing a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) refusing the petitioner permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, the court held that there was no error of law in the UT's decision, and even if that was wrong, applying the relevant test the court did not have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness of the decision under review. 

Sentencing – Hospital order. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of four years for the manslaughter of his mother. He appealed on the basis that the judge should have made a hospital order under s 37 and a restriction order under s 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the defendant would not continue to pose a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public once his mental disorder had been cured or substantially alleviated. Accordingly, a hospital order and a restriction order would be made. 

Jury – Verdict. The defendant was convicted by majority of assault by penetration of the vagina, but acquitted of attempted rape and assault by anal penetration. He appealed against conviction. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was a clear and sensible explanation that rendered the verdicts consistent. Further, the conviction was not vitiated because the judge had given a direction in accordance with R v Watson ([1988] 1 All ER 897) at the same time as a majority direction. 

Medical practitioner – Duty of care. The claimant sought damages for negligence following the death of his wife in the hospital for which the defendant NHS Trust was responsible. He contended that her death would have been prevented had her peripheral leg pulses been tested by palpation. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert. On that evidence, the claimant had not established a breach of duty by the doctor. Further, it was highly speculative that, had the doctor palpated the deceased's peripheral pulses, life-saving surgery would have been performed on time.