Latest Cases

Feeds

MP v Templeton, Locality Reporter Manager

Children's hearing – Right to challenge decision of children's hearing. Court of Session: In appeal against a sheriff's refusal of an appeal to her against a decision of a children's hearing as incompetent, the court held that the sheriff was fully entitled on the facts found by her to hold that the appellant was not a 'relevant person' within the meaning of s 93(2)(b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and thus did not have the right to challenge the decision of a children's hearing through an appeal to the sheriff and, ultimately, to the Court of Session. 

R (on the application of The Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire) v Blaby District Council

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire challenged the defendant local authority's grant of outline planning permission so far as it concerned funding for police services. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to surmount the very high threshold for establishing irrationality in the authority's failure to ensure an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 secured adequate and timely contributions to policing. Further, the authority had not made an unequivocal representation that could have led the claimant to expect that it would be consulted on the level of and timing of the delivery of the contribution. 

*Technische Universitat Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG

European Union – Data protection. A university sought to make a book available in its library via electronic reading points. The owner of the user rights to the book, Ulmer, sought to prevent the book from being made available in that way. In the course of proceedings, the German Federal Court of Justice referred three preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court rulings on the interpretation of art 5(3)(n) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. 

*Hallam Estates Ltd and another v Baker

Time – Extension of time. Having failed in their claim for defamation, the claimants were granted an extension of time for filing their points of dispute in respect of the defendant's bill of costs. The defendant appealed that order, but it was dismissed. Subsequently, the defendant did successfully appeal the extension on the ground that the claimants had issued their application out of time and so had been seeking relief from sanctions, which the judge had been wrong to grant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the application for an extension had been made in time and so there had been no relief from sanctions. The court gave guidance on changes to the CPR in respect of applications to extend time. 

Rentokil Initial 1927 plc v Goodman Derrick LLP

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant company retained the defendant solicitors' firm to act in the sale of commercial premises to another company. The sale was completed at a lower price than originally agreed and the claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for negligence. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the relevant clauses of the sale agreement had not exposed the claimant to the risks which it asserted as the foundation of its claim against the defendant. Further, the claimant's representative had had a proper understanding of the risks inherent in the transaction, and the detail and effect of the terms of the contract. 

R (on the application of Natalia Heritage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another

Immigration – Leave to remain. Following the claimant Russian national's divorce from a British citizen, the defendant Secretary of State refused her further leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on the fact that her former spouse had worked elsewhere in the European Union during their marriage. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had been Wednesbury unreasonable in failing to take into account that the claimant had been exercising rights as a family member under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for some of the period she had been in the UK. 

*Actavis Ltd and other companies v Eli Lilly & Company

Patent – Infringement. The defendant company, Lilly, produced a cancer treatment marketed under the name Alimta. The claimant companies sought to produce a generic product and obtain regulatory approval for it by reference to Alimta. Lilly contended that doing so would infringe its patent. The Patents Court considered the issue with regard to the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain, and held that the claimant companies were entitled to a declaration of non-infringement concerning all of the jurisdictions in question. 

*Pathania v Adedeji and another (Bank of Scotland plc intervening)

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant appealed against the entry of judgment against him on the basis that the claimant had failed to disclose his bankruptcy, which had occurred after the start of proceedings, but before judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the first defendant's appeal had been founded on the false premises that the bankruptcy order had immediately deprived the claimant of his cause of action. The first defendant had failed to show that the claimant's property had passed to a trustee in bankruptcy before judgment, and that the claimant had known that the official receiver had become trustee, that his estate had become vested in the official receiver and that that had been so before judgment had been entered. 

Hammond v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus)

Costs – Employment tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal against an award of costs made against him by the employment tribunal. The EAT found that the tribunal had erred in law as it was not possible to tell from the tribunal's reasons whether it had taken into account a potentially relevant matter, namely the employee's means. The matter was remitted to the tribunal. 

Al-Waheed v Ministry of Defence

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Pursuant to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, a judge of the High Court could grant a 'leapfrog' certificate to enable the case to proceed directly to the Supreme Court. In the instant case of several hundred claims by Iraqi civilians seeking damages from the defendant Ministry of Defence for their allegedly unlawful detention and/or unlawful treatment by British armed, the Queen's Bench Division granted the application. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Investment in justice

The Bar Council will press for investment in justice at party conferences, the Chancellor’s Budget and Spending Review

Job of the Week

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases