Latest Cases

Personal injuries – Limitation of actions – Time bar – Discretion to allow action to proceed. Court of Session: In an action in which relatives of persons killed when a bin lorry driven by the defenders' employee collided with pedestrians sought reparation from the defenders, who pled that the claims in that action were time-barred, the instance of an earlier action raised within the triennium having fallen as the summons was not called within 3 months and a day of its passing signet, the court was in no doubt that the balance of the equities came down in the pursuers' favour and that it should exercise its power under s 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow their claims to proceed.

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered the validity of three patents relating to pharmaceutical compositions for inhalation. The defendant company (Ventura) alleged that the claimant companies (together, GSK) had infringed the patents by the manufacture and sale of dry powder inhalers containing ingredients used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The court held that GSK had not established that any of the patents were obvious over any of the cited prior art. Further, Vectura had not proved that GSK's process and products had infringed the patents. Furthermore, the patents were all invalid on the grounds of insufficiency. GSK's process, and hence the products obtained as a direct result of that process, were obvious over the prior art.

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Public interest immunity. The Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) was granted various warrants under s 28 of the Competition Act 1998, concerning an investigation into suspected anti-competitive behaviours in relation to a number of pharmaceutical drugs. The defendant (Concordia) applied to have the warrant granted in respect of it discharged to the extent that it applied to certain medicines. Prior to that application being heard, the Chancery Division considered whether Concordia could have sight of certain confidential material submitted in support of the CMA's application or whether non-disclosure could be justified, as the CMA submitted, on the ground of public interest immunity.

Contract – Damages for breach. The appellant's appeal in respect of his claim for breach of contract against the respondent IVF clinic was dismissed. The clinic had implanted an embryo containing the appellant's gametes into his former partner (R), from whom the appellant had, by then, separated, without the appellant's consent (his signature having been forged). R had later given birth to a child. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled, among other things, that the legal policy which prevented recoverability of the cost of the upbringing of a healthy child tortious claims applied to the appellant's claim for breach of contract.

Contract – Construction. The declaration sought by the claimant employer, that, on the proper construction of practical completion within an amended JCT 2011 design and build contract, it was possible to achieve completion of one section of the works prior to the completion of the whole of the works, was granted. The Technology and Construction Court held that the interpretation of practical completion contended for on behalf of the defendant contractor, and accepted by the adjudicator, had not accorded with the ordinary meaning of the words used.

Public order – Offences. As a matter of law, the Crown Court had been entitled on its findings of fact to dismiss the appellant's appeal, thereby confirming his conviction by the magistrates for an offence contrary to s 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The total amount which the husband had to pay was £4.05m following the wife's application for financial provision. The Family Court based that on an initial lump sum in respect of housing and capitalised maintenance of £3.65m, with an additional £400,000, being a little bit less than half of the total sum due on her litigation loan.

Passport – United Kingdom passport. The cancellation of each claimant's passport had been necessary and proportionate, and the defendant Secretary of State had not been legally obliged to give them advance notice of the basis on which she had been minded to cancel their passports. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the decision on the behalf of the defendant Secretary of State's to cancel each of their British passports.

Prison – Release on licence. The National Probation Service's decision to set an exclusion zone that included the claimant's family home, where he wanted to move on his release from prison where he was serving a sentence for manslaughter on licence, had not been unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that the interests of the claimant's wife and daughter had been given them due weight and the National Probation Service had been justified in finding them outweighed by the concerns of the victim's family.

Immigration – Tier 1 entrepreneur. The respondent Secretary of State's evidence that a Companies House current appointment report had not accompanied the first appellant's Tier 1 entrepreneur application would be accepted. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appellants' appeal against the judge's permission to apply for judicial review to challenge that decision, further held that the appellants' documents did not demonstrate that the first appellant had been continuously engaged in business activity.