Latest Cases

Company - Director - Removal – . The minority shareholder of a company had been subject to unfairly prejudicial conduct by a majority shareholder who had called for and obtained his removal as a director following a challenge to the intellectual property rights of the company. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the majority shareholder's appeal on the ground that, whilst the minority shareholder had acted in a way that was in breach of his fiduciary duty, that breach had not amounted to conduct that made it fair to exclude him from management.

– . In a judicial review planning permission challenge by the claimant to the development of an intensive poultry-rearing facility, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the planning authority had misunderstood the environmental permit in respect of the proposed development, and the environmental impact assessment undertaken for the development had been inadequate in respect of the likely effects of odour and dust arising from the storage and spreading of manure.

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The language of s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 showed that it raised the threshold of seriousness and required that its application be determined by reference to the actual facts about its impact and not just to the implicit meaning of the words. The Supreme Court so held in dismissing the defendant newspapers appeal against a finding that newspaper articles had involved publication of defamatory statements which had caused, or had been likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant.

Negligence – Causation. While it was natural to suspect a link between the significant overdose of pancuronium and the claimant's severe neurological injury, sustained at birth, the evidence did not establish the necessary causal connection between the two. Overall, the claimant's neurological injury was explained by his prematurity and perinatal course. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division ruled that causation had not been established and the claim against the defendant NHS Trust was dismissed.

Injunction – Anti-suit injunction. The claimant Jordanian company's application for a permanent anti-suit injunction against the defendant French company succeeded, in a dispute concerning works carried out at the Aqaba Container Terminal in Jordan. The Commercial Court held that there were no strong reasons for not granting an injunction to prevent further breach by the defendant of the agreement that it had made.

Extradition – Private and family life. Having regard to all the factors to be taken into account in the balancing exercise, the judge's decision had not been wrong either on the basis of the evidence before him or having regard, in addition, to fresh evidence. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the order for his extradition to Poland for one offence of theft.

Local government – Expenditure. The claimant local authorities' application for judicial review of a decision of the defendant Secretary of State failed. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had adopted the correct legal approach to the exercise of his discretion, and his decision had neither amounted to a disproportionate interference with art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the equivalent common law rights of the affected residents, nor to the provision of an unlawful state aid contrary to art 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Statute – Construction. The correct construction of the words 'the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week' in AA 1967 s 1(1)(a) was that a woman would have exceeded her 24th week of pregnancy once she was 24 weeks + 0 days pregnant, or in other words, from midnight on the expiration of her 24th week of pregnancy, as stated in the decision letter issued on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Administrative court so held in dismissing the claimant's challenge that the Secretary of State had made an error of law in the decision letter or that the decision was procedurally unfair.

Immigration - Deportation - Internal relocation – . Whilst the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had not erred in its application of the law to the issue of whether internal relocation to Kabul would have been harsh, it had erred in regard to the evidence that it had relied upon in regard to the percentage of the population of Kabul that had suffered indiscriminate violence. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Afghan national's appeal against the refusal of his claim for asylum.

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered issues in a dispute concerning the validity of a pharmaceutical patent, of which the defendant company was the proprietor. Among other things, the court decided to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The question referred was whether European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 469/2009 precluded the grant of a supplementary protection certificate to the proprietor of a basic patent in respect of a product which was the subject of a marketing authorisation held by a third party without that party's consent.