Latest Cases

Damages – Measure of damages. The claimant's husband (the deceased) had suffered from, inter alia, pulmonary hypertension caused by chronic pulmonary emboli. Prior to his death, the deceased had consulted the defendant doctor on a number of occasions with regard to his health condition. The deceased had been concerned over the quality of advice received by the defendant and commenced proceedings against him, which were continued after the deceased's death by the claimant. Subsequent to proceedings being issued, the defendant had admitted liability that his discounting of a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and the consequential failure to prescribe Warfarin amounted to clinical negligence by him. The instant case concerned the award of damages to the claimant. The Queen's Bench Division awarded sums of compensation for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, bereavement, loss of earnings, and the cost of two consultations the deceased had paid to the defendant. The total amount awarded exceeded £16550 with interest. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. In the course of proceedings concerning an alleged breach of warranty, the defendant made an application to strike out the claimant's claim. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's claim had some realistic prospect of success, and that an argument put forward by the defendant at trial needed to be properly examined. 

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. 

Civil procedure – Contempt. Sheriff Court: In proceedings to determine whether two social workers in the Children's and Families Department of the City of Edinburgh Council were in contempt of court, the court found that the social workers had failed to obtemper the court's interlocutors of 24 May 2013 by not making two children available for contact with their mother from 11 July until 23 August 2013, and that in those circumstances they were guilty of a contempt of the court's authority. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The defendant had satisfied a confiscation order against him under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Over six years later, the judge imposed a further confiscation order. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had taken an unexceptional approach to the case and that the further confiscation order had been neither wrong nor manifestly excessive. 

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.