Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. RR was an elderly lady suffering from dementia. She was being looked after at home by her son and his companion. Following a safeguarding scare, the local authority removed RR from her home without informing her son or seeking permission from the court. The Family Division made declarations to the effect that as a result there had been a breach of RR's rights under art 5 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Chinese national's application for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) student was refused because he failed to provide a bank statement from 24 August 2012 and only provided the statement from 28/29 August. He issued judicial review proceedings, contending that para 245AA of the Immigration Rules applied because one bank statement 'from a series' had been omitted. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that something could not be 'missing' from a sequence until the sequence itself existed, which meant that at least the start and end of the sequence had to be in evidence. As the statement constituting or evidencing the start of the sequence had been missing, para 245AA of the Immigration Rules had not been engaged. 

Patent – Infringement. The defendant company, LEO, owned two pharmaceutical patents. The claimant company, TEVA, opposed both of the patents on the grounds that they were, among other things, obvious. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, held that, given a prior United States patent, the two patents were obvious. 

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister was charged with four offences of professional misconduct by the respondent Bar Standards Board. He was unable to attend the hearing and his application for an adjournment was refused by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Courts (the tribunal). The hearing proceeded in his absence, and he was disbarred and fined. The appellant appealed against the refusal of an adjournment. The Divisional Court, in allowing his appeal, held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the approach to be applied when determining whether to grant an adjournment. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that, in deciding to refuse contact between E and other members of her family, the judge had failed to take into account a number of highly significant matters, the omission of which rendered the judicial analysis unsafe. The issue of contact needed to be reheard by a different judge who would be in a position to take on board all of the relevant factors and, if necessary, be furnished with an up–to-date appraisal of E's wishes and feelings, and information concerning any other developments. 

Indemnity – Negligence. Following a flood at a recently constructed block of flats, the building owner commenced proceedings against the main contractor which led to a series of claims against the chain of sub-contractors. The judge found that the mechanical sub-sub-sub-contractor (Robson) had been liable for two defects in workmanship which had been the principal cause of the flood with the result that the Robson was liable under the indemnity clause contained in the agreement by which it had been engaged by HSE. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld that decision and found that HSE's failure to inspect the work properly, even when the breaches should have been detected upon a reasonable inspection of the work, had not shut out its claim under the indemnity. It could not have been presumed that the parties had intended to confine the indemnity clause only to workmanship breaches which had been invisible upon reasonable inspection. 

Design – Design right. The claimant brought proceedings against his brother, the first defendant, and the second defendant for infringement of a United Kingdom registered design and of UK unregistered design rights in respect of a contact lens cleaning device. A judge had found that the unregistered design rights relied on by the claimant had been infringed by sales by the second defendant of two products and he ordered an account in relation to the sales of one product. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, having considered the relevant profit made by the first claimant from the sale of the product, held that he was liable to pay the claimant the sum of £15,800. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant and the defendant entered into two written agreements, a master agreement (the master agreement) containing general terms and conditions and an insulation scheme event transaction document (the document). The claimant contended that under the terms of the document the defendant was in breach of contract. The defendant denied that it was in breach of the document or at all. Furthermore it sought to rely on, inter alia, cll 10.1 of the master agreement which excluded liability for indirect losses and limited liability for direct losses to £1,000,000. The claimant denied that the clause limited or excluded liability for the losses it suffered as a result of the breach of the document.The Queen's Bench Division held that cl 10.1 of the master agreement had not excluded liability for the claimant's losses. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl regarding the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'FAIRGLOBE' as a Community trade mark. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following the murder of the mother by the father, the local authority sought care and placement orders for the three children of the family. The maternal grandmother and the other members of the family opposed the making of such orders. The local authority made the orders sought applying the criteria of the welfare of each individual child being considered paramount.t