Latest Cases

Copyright – Infringement. In the course of proceedings concerning alleged breach of copyright regarding the cartoon character Betty Boop, the parties made a number of applications. The Intellectual Property and Community Trade Mark Court dismissed the defendants' application to have the court decline jurisdiction and for the proceedings to be stayed, and allowed the claimants' application for summary judgment. 

Contempt of court – Committal. A committal order for four months' immediate imprisonment was made in respect of the defendants regarding their non-compliance with a planning injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, in circumstances where compliance had been achieved and the defendants had apologised for their breaches and non-compliance, the order for imprisonment would be set aside and replaced by a substantial financial penalty calculated by reference to the income that they had received as a consequence of their breach. 

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. 

Pension – Equal treatment of men and women. The appellant male-to-female transsexual had not applied for a gender recognition certificate, as she did not wish to annul her existing marriage. Her application for a state pension at the pensionable age for a woman was refused on the basis that she was a man. The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dismissed her appeals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the requirement to annul her marriage did not breach the principle of equal treatment in Council Directive (EEC) 79/7 and was not discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. 

Criminal Law – Importation of prohibited goods. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of six years' imprisonment for conspiracy to evade a prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug of Class A, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, had been unduly lenient. Despite the offender's limited involvement in the conspiracy, the judge ought to have scaled up the sentence to reflect the massive quantities involved within the operation. The offender's sentence would be quashed and substituted for a sentence of eleven years' imprisonment. 

Court of Appeal – Leave to appeal. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners had issued proceedings regarding a missing trader intra-community fraud. Following a trial of sample claims, some of the allegations were found to be proved and the defendants were ordered to pay the sums lost in revenue. The defendants sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ordered that conditions regarding payment into court of the judgment sum be attached to the application for permission to appeal and ordered a stay of the execution of the judgment between the payment into court of the judgment sum and determination of the appeal. 

Mental health – Patient. The applicant NHS Foundation Trust sought declarations, including that it was not in the respondent's best interests to be subjected to further compulsory detention and treatment of her anorexia nervosa, and that it was in her best interests and would be lawful for her treating clinicians not to provide her with nutrition and hydration with which she did not comply. Having fully reviewed the circumstances of the case, including the unanimous medical evidence that the declarations were in the respondent's best interests, the Court of Protection held that treatment of the respondent's anorexia should not be compelled. 

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. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The first and second defendants were convicted of conspiracy to supply amphetamine, and the third defendant was convicted of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case on the basis of fresh evidence as to the principal witness for the prosecution. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the addition to the opprobrium of the witness of one post-trial allegation would not have been of the significance necessary to cast doubt upon the safety of the defendants' convictions. 

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.