Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division, among other things, made an order for unlimited standard disclosure by the defendant pharmaceutical companies in respect of certain claims brought against them by the United Kingdom health authorities for damages for alleged breaches of competition law. However, it held that it was not appropriate to order enhanced disclosure at the present stage in relation to the defendants' application for the relevant patent and submissions to regulatory authorities. 

Criminal law – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of five years' imprisonment, for the offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, had been unduly lenient. A total sentence of seven years' imprisonment would be more appropriate in the circumstances. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court, in a fact finding hearing where two families were involved made findings of fact in relation to a non-accidental injury of a child L, in order to determine the future of three infants who were each the subject of care proceedings brought by the local authority. The principal facts which the court was being asked to find concerned the brain injuries sustained by L. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, found that the first defendant had been fit to plead at his trial for burglary and dismissed his appeal. However, the second defendant's delusional beliefs would have affected his ability to understand the proceedings and to give evidence at his trial for breach of a restraining order. Accordingly, his conviction was quashed and substituted by a finding he had done the acts charged, and a hospital order with a restriction order without limit of time was made. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Planning Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, upholding the enforcement notice issued by the second respondent local planning authority. The appellant's four grounds of appeal were rejected. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by five Pakistani citizens, a principal applicant, who sought leave to remain in the UK as a tier 1 (entrepreneur) migrant, and her husband and three children, whose application was refused on the basis that she had not complied with the requirement to show access to at least £200,000 for the purpose of investing in a business in UK, and whose appeals were refused by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, the court held that the necessary letter from the bank confirming that the funds in her husband's account were available to the first appellant was missing, there was nothing to suggest that the husband had placed the funds under his wife's control, and in those circumstances common sense, humanity, or 'a modicum of intelligence' did not require a different approach from that taken by the Secretary of State. 

Contract – Intention to create legal relationship. The Queen's Bench Division construed a contract using ordinary principles of contractual construction and found in favour of the claimant that a notice had in fact been a demand that the defendant purchase the relevant shares. 

Insolvency – Liquidator. The Chancery Division held, among other things, that the defendant liquidator was not liable to the claimant firm of solicitors (the firm) for its charges, basic costs and uplift or for interest on unpaid or late payment of disbursements in respect of work done, pursuant to a conditional fee agreement (CFA), in respect of the liquidation of a company. A letter sent to the Firm by the liquidator and its acceptance by the Firm's principal, had had the effect of importing into the conditional fee agreement that recovery of assets into the estate was a precondition to the firm rendering an invoice to the liquidator for work done by the Firm. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 24 of Directive (EC) 2004/38, and art 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010, should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which nationals of other member states who were in a situation such as that referred to in art 6(1) of that directive were excluded from entitlement to certain 'special non-contributory cash benefits' within the meaning of art 70(2) of Regulation 883/2004, which also constituted 'social assistance' within the meaning of art 24(2) of Directive 2004/38. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of five years and ten months' imprisonment for aggravated burglary. After giving guidance on s 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, it held that, if the judge had wrongly found the appellant had deliberately absented himself from trial, he would have been obligated to have concluded that the appellant would be entitled to a retrial.