Latest Cases

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. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appeal concerned the amended Immigration Rules that required a UK spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the United Kingdom to join them. The Administrative Court had held that there was substantial merit in the contention that the amendments amounted to a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not grant declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his analysis and had reached the wrong conclusion on compatibility. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant in-house solicitor for a newspaper appealed against the finding of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) that he was guilty of failing to act with integrity and knowingly allowing the judge to be misled in the conduct of litigation. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge had been misled. The SDT, having disavowed making any finding of dishonesty, could not properly proceed to make a finding that the appellant had knowingly allowed the judge to be misled. However, it was inevitable that the SDT would have found him guilty on the basis that he had recklessly allowed the judge to be misled. 

Patent – Petition for revocation. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking a declaration that a European patent for a dosage regimen for use of levonorgestrel as a method of emergency contraception was invalid and should be revoked on grounds including obviousness. The Patents Court, having considered relevant person skilled in the art, held that it had been obvious from a report, discussing interim results of research regarding the effectiveness of a regimen involving a single dose as compared a two-dose regimen, that such a regimen could be pursued and investigated with a reasonable or fair expectation of success. Accordingly, the challenge to the validity of the patent on the ground of obviousness succeeded. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Secretary of State had failed to consult the public of the Republic of Ireland in accordance with art 7 of Directive (EU) 2011/92 in granting development consent for the construction of a European pressurised reactor nuclear power station. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that the test was not whether the project was 'likely to have significant effects on the environment' applying to Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, but the 'real risk' test adopted in domestic authorities. It further refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Immigration – Asylum – Leave to appeal. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings in which the petitioner challenged a decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing him leave to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal's refusal of his appeal against deportation, the court continued the petition to a substantive first hearing, holding that the error of law the petitioner raised was arguable and had substance and that while it did not raise an important point of principle of general application there was 'some other compelling reason' to allow review. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant obtained information in relation to the claimant Tata (a multi-national IT consultancy company). Tata was very anxious that the defendant had seemingly managed to obtain access to confidential information and applied for interim injunctive relief requiring the delivery up of certain property belonging to Tata and the deletion of any soft copies of that property and prohibiting the defendant from communicating or disclosing to any person Tata's proprietary and confidential information as well as from inducing or procuring any third party to provide him with Tata's proprietary and confidential information. The Queen's Bench Division allowed both aspects of the interim relief. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The child S, died in hospital. Post mortem investigations found that she was suffering from a number of injuries usually associated with non-accidental trauma, such as bone fractures, a scalp injury and intra-cranial bleeding. In addition, S, suffered from a number of conditions, all linked to a unique combination of genetic abnormalities. Following a fact finding hearing, the Family Division held that the local authority had not proven on a balance of probabilities that S's injuries had been inflicted non-accidentally. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had invested in a fund operated by the defendant, a Gibraltar company, which had lost all its capital. The claimant brought a claim in negligence and breach of contract against the defendant and served the claim form, without permission, outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2)(b)(iii) and art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the service of the claim where the claimant had a good arguable case that there had been a concluded agreement, within art 23 of the Regulation.