Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant hospital had been in breach of duty in not administering prophylactic heparin to the claimant on 29 June, following is admission for post operative pain, when on a balance of probabilities it would have prevented the pulmonary embolism which had subsequently occurred. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made rulings concerning twins born to the applicant, X, who was in a same-sex relationship with the first respondent, Y. Owing to IVF treatment, X was the biological mother, and Y the gestational mother, of the twins. Owing to an error on the part of the clinic that had provided the treatment, X was not registered as the parent. The court held that an order would be made that X was the parent of the twins. 

Water and watercourses – Flow of water. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimants' claim regarding the collapse of a slope on their property. The court held that the defendant water authority's expert evidence was to be preferred over the claimants'. Further, applying the appropriate test, there had been no material contribution to the presence of fluid. The claimants had failed to establish causation. 

Elections – Parliamentary. The Queen's Bench Division held that due to an admitted breach by the thee elected candidates of r 6 of the Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) England and Wales Rules 2006, SI 3305/06 the election was void and it would be necessary to rerun it. 

Patent – Practice. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ruled on a number of applications made in respect of a claim concerning a patent for a snap-in insert which was used in display panels for shops. Among other things, it held that the English courts had jurisdiction over the dispute; granted the claimants' application for an order, under CPR 6.15(1) and (2) that good service was deemed to have been achieved by delivery to the defendants of a copy of an unsigned claim form; and dismissed a claim against one of the defendants where there were no arguable pleaded grounds on which the claimants could allege that that defendants had infringed the patent. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal by British Telecommunications plc against a decision of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) contained in a statement in which Ofcom had expressed its concern that BT could distort the development of competition in superfast broadband services (SFBB) to customers by setting an insufficient margin between the price of virtual unbundled local access (VULA) and the price of its retail packages which used VULA as an input. The tribunal rejected BT's range of arguments that Ofcom's market analysis was deficient and could not withstand profound and rigorous scrutiny. 

European Union – Immigration. The Administrative Court awarded the claimant Brazilian national damages of £136,048 for false imprisonment and breach of European Union law. The defendant Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to issue him with a European Economic Area residence card on the basis of his marriage to a European Union citizen. 

Bankruptcy – Appeal. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant's appeal against a bankruptcy order. It held that, among other things, in making the order the deputy district judge had been right in finding that the respondent company had acted reasonably in rejecting the applicant's offer to secure the debt. 

Data protection – Subject access request. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an application by the claimants under CPR Pt 8, and held that the defendant had failed to comply with its subject access request duties pursuant to s 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, where neither the crime exemption nor legal privilege exemption applied, and refused to exercise its discretion in the defendant's favour. 

Immigration – Detention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant Somali national's appeal against the dismissal of his claim for judicial review, seeking a declaration and damages in the tort of false imprisonment and for breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the basis that he had been unlawfully detained by the defendant Secretary of State. Among things, it held that each of the conclusions reached by the deputy judge that had underpinned his conclusion that the period of the claimant's detention had been reasonable in all the circumstances had been material conclusions he had been fully entitled to have reached on the evidence available to him.