Latest Cases

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Clinical negligence. PSLA of £5,000. The claimant brought the claim on behalf of her late father after he suffered blood loss and death as result of a transaortic valve replacement procedure to remedy his aortic valve stenosis. The claimant alleged the deceased was never informed that the procedure was newly developed and still the subject of clinical trials, and that the defendants failed to care for him properly. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division, in allowing a claim by the claimant company, American Science and Engineering inc, held that the defendant company had infringed the claimant's patent, entitled 'X-ray backscatter mobile inspection van'. The invention was not obvious in the light of prior art, and hence infringement had occurred. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that following an assessment of the patient the presumption that the patient had the capacity to marry and engage in sexual relations as defined under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been displaced. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a finding by the employment tribunal (the tribunal) that the employee had not suffered direct discrimination and harassment because of/related to her religion or belief. The tribunal had concluded that the employee had not been subjected to disciplinary process or sanction because she had manifested her religious belief in voluntary and consensual exchanges with a colleague, but because she had subjected a subordinate to unwanted and unwelcome conduct. The treatment of which the employee had complained was because of, and related to, those inappropriate actions; not any legitimate manifestation of her belief. The tribunal had approached its task correctly and the appeal could not stand given the tribunal's factual findings. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division granted certain declaratory relief in respect of the existence of constructive trusts following an application by the applicant pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882. The focus of the application was a dispute about the beneficial ownership of four central London properties which both parties owned, or in which either or both had had an interest during their former relationship and which had been used to guarantee two loans taken out by the parties. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing a claim for misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence, held that the claimant had not had a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of the information in issue and a source within the defendant Ministry of Defence (the MOD) had not owed him (as opposed to the MOD) a duty of confidence. 

Criminal law – Trial. In an appeal against an order imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the case, for the first time, raised the question of how critical fair trial protections could be extended to prevent or control communications on social media. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, revoked the s 4(2) order and ordered the various media organisations not to place any report of the criminal trial on their Facebook page(s), and, to disable the ability for users to post comments on their respective news websites on any published reports of the criminal trial. 

Negligence – Vehicles. The Queen's Bench Division allowed a claim for damages for personal injury and consequential loss following a vehicular collision which, through the events that followed, had resulted in the claimant's leg being amputated. The defendant was liable for the entirety of the incident which had flowed directly from his negligent act in reversing into the claimant without having kept a proper look out. The damages would be reduced by 60% to reflect the claimant's contributory negligence in having left his car's ignition on and the car in neutral, when he had gone to stand behind the car to inspect the damage. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision that the defendant was entitled to recover spread costs for a period of delay caused by the claimant's breach of contract. The language of the exclusion clause in the contract in LOGIC form was clear and was apt to exclude liability for wasted costs in the form of the spread costs which the defendant sought to recover. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that owing to the father's reported behaviour it was in the three boys' best interests not to have any face to face contact with him until he made changes to his behaviour. Face to face contact included Face Time and Skype. Contact was to be limited to telephone contact for one hour and further an order was made under s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 regarding further applications by the father.