Latest Cases

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The proceedings concerned the care of a young man, M, who was autistic. His parents, especially his mother, E, contended that care for M had been ineffective and that his condition had been the result of the use of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. The local authority sought orders stating that E had invented symptoms and failed to assist with M's care. The Court of Protection granted the orders and refused E's application to be reinstated as M's deputy. 

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. 

Education – Higher education. The claimant, who had discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, was ineligible for a student loan as a result of her immigration status. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant Secretary of State's appeal, found that the defendant Secretary of State had adopted a lawful bright line rule in formulating the 'basic category' of eligible students given in para 2 of pt 2 of Sch 1 to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. 

Medicine – Product licence. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on the basis that, when conducting a re-inspection, the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) was knowingly gathering evidence in the context and for the purpose of infringement proceedings which had been brought against it under Commission Regulation (EC) 658/2007. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not declare that the MHRA's response to the European Medicines Agency's requests under art 8(3) of the Regulation had been unlawful or rule substantially rule on the contention that the material provided contained errors. Further, the MHRA's conduct had not been procedurally improper and unlawful in failing to advise the claimant of the potential use of the information. 

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. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employment tribunal struck out the employee's claim, due to non-compliance with an unless order, and awarded costs against the employee. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal against the costs order on the ground that it had been unclear as to whether the tribunal had exercised any independent scrutiny of the sums claimed by the employer. If it had done so, the judgment had not adequately disclosed its reasoning in that regard. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for rehearing on the question of the amount of the award of costs only. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to France to face drug transportation charges. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the European arrest warrant had contained proper particulars and the consequences of the interference with the appellant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not so exceptionally severe as to outweigh the public interest in extradition. Further, the judge had been entitled to conclude that it had been in the interests of justice that the appellant's extradition should take place. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. In dismissing an employee's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, confirmed that the practice of employment tribunals to consult between themselves after the hearing and for the decision to be written by the employment judge alone, without a draft being provided to the lay members, if properly followed, was a legitimate procedure which satisfied the requirement that the decision and reasons should record the conclusions of all members of the tribunal. 

Arbitration – Appeal. The claimant, PEC, was a company owned by the President of India.The defendant company, AGR, was a Thailand-based rice trader. PEC appealed under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against a finding by the GAFTA First-tier Tribunal that a purchase agreement had been concluded between the parties, through two individuals, R and J, on behalf of PEC, for the purchase of rice by PEC and that PEC were liable to pay AGR $6.25m. The Commercial Court, allowing the appeal, held that R and J had not had actual or apparent authority to conclude the purchase agreement, and that PEC had not made any arbitration agreement relating thereto. 

Company – Director. The claimant company claimed for loss suffered when two client companies defaulted on their obligations to pay margin calls under open-ended contracts for difference (CfD) entered into between the claimant and those two companies. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's determination that the defendant had not been a director or shadow director of the claimant, nor had his conduct constituted a breach of s 190 of the Companies Act 2006.