Latest Cases

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. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Employer's liability. PSLA of £70,500 with total damages of £662,358.02. The claimant was injured when he slipped and fell on ice at work. He experienced chronic regional pain syndrome, with poor prognosis and a 25% chance of future amputation of the foot. He also developed related depression. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Children's Guardian and the local authority against an order stating that the Hungarian court was better placed to hear a case regarding two children and that transferring the case to Hungary would be in the children's best interests. The children were Hungarian nationals born in the United Kingdom to Hungarian parents. The transfer request would be set aside and the case would be returned to the Family Division. 

Environment – Protection-Broads. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Broads Authority's decision that the brand 'Broads National Park' should be adopted for marketing-related purposes, although it was not a statutorily designated National Park. The Authority's decision had not been unlawful as outside the Authority's statutory powers and duties, irrational or procedurally unfair, and the Authority had not had regard to an immaterial consideration. 

Land registration – Title. The Chancery Division held that the claimant and the first defendant, who was his wife, were entitled to an order setting aside a transfer and a settlement and transfer of property on the grounds of mistake, where they had believed that the steps they had taken would not result in an immediate charge to tax nor a ten-year anniversary charge. The equitable rules applied to the situation. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to set aside all of the relevant transactions. 

Criminal law – Robbery. On a reference by the Attorney General, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of four years' imprisonment for the robbery of a man in his home, had been unduly lenient. In the circumstances, the offender's sentence would be quashed and, in its place, a term of nine years' imprisonment would be imposed. 

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. 

Trade mark – Opposition. The Chancery Division allowed Gap's appeal against a decision dismissing its opposition, under s 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, to an application by British American Group Ltd (BAGL) to register 'The GapTravelGuide' as a trade mark in respect of the services of magazine publishing in Class 41. The hearing officer had erred in concluding that the average customer would generally be a business and there had been inconsistency in his reasoning in certain paragraphs of his decision. There was a risk of likelihood of confusion between the 'GAP' trade mark and the mark which BAGL sought to register. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £3,800. The claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to the neck and upper back, and a soft tissue injury to the middle back area and right wrist. The judge awarded £3,400 for the spinal injuries and £400 for the wrist injury. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division held that, in the course of proceedings concerning three Sikh temples, the correct interpretation of an order made by the Supreme Court was that the claimants were entitled to immediate detailed assessment of all of the relevant costs. The master had dismissed the application of the first to fourth defendants for an order setting aside a notice of commencement of detailed assessment which had been served by the claimants. He had been amply entitled to exercise his discretion as he had done, and there were no grounds on which the court could or ought to interfere.