Latest Cases

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. P was an elderly patient in under the care of the relevant NHS Trust. She was described by a number of the medical professionals as being 'very frail', had no eye contact, appeared unconscious, and was unable to communicate or respond to any requests or commands. The Trust sought declarations pursuant to s 15(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that it was lawful and in P's best interests to continue to receive artificial hydration via subcutaneous injection and that the treating clinicians were to be permitted not to provide artificial nutrition by a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube or via an alternative artificial feeding regime and not to resuscitate her in the event of either a cardiac or respiratory arrest. The Court of Protection granted the declarations as being in P's best interests. 

Passing off – Descriptive name. The claimant made and sold hair oil under the name 'Moroccanoil' and the defendant sold hair oil, 'Miracle Oil'. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for passing off. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the evidence did not lead to the conclusion that members of the public were likely to assume either that Miracle Oil and Moroccanoil were the same thing, that they came from the same manufacture or were otherwise linked in trade. Accordingly, the claimant had failed to establish passing off because the evidence had not supported any likelihood of a misrepresentation by the defendant. 

Human Rights – Infringement of human rights. The present proceedings concerned the assessment of damages for the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner's breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, by failing to conduct an effective investigation into the rapes and other sexual assaults carried out by a third party. The Queen's Bench Division, taking into account the claimants' settlement of proceedings against the third party and damages awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, awarded the first claimant £22,250 and the second claimant £19,000. 

Shipping – Cargo. The Commercial Court determined preliminary issues concerning a claim by the claimant owner of a vessel to enforce the terms of a letter of undertaking, which had been provided by defendant time charterer of the vessel to the owners by way of security for the potential liability of cargo interests in general average. 

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. 

Nuisance – Sewer. During construction work in Newcastle, concrete used to make building supports by the defendant company escaped into a sewer controlled by the claimant company. The claimant brought proceedings in nuisance and negligence. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claim. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in dismissing the claim. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employer dismissed the employee for misconduct, namely dishonesty. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusions had not been perverse. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant solicitor and the second defendant retired solicitor had acted for the first defendant in a boundary dispute. The differences arising from that litigation resulted in further proceedings between the parties. The Queen's Bench Division dealt with their application notices. It held that there was no basis to strike out the claimant's application against the defendants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977. However, the court struck out the witness statements of the defendants and the second defendant's wife as irrelevant, an abuse of the court's process and likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The second defendant local authority issued an enforcement notice over all of the claimants' land. The inspector for the first defendant Secretary of State dismissed their appeal and the claimants appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that planning permission had been lost, as the claimants had created two new planning units, which had materially changed the use from the planning permission. Further, the claimants could not rely on s 57(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as the enforcement notice had covered areas that had not been the subject of the planning permission.