Latest Cases

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.

Landlord and tenant – Agricultural tenancy. A appellant widow appealed, as the executrix of her deceased husband's will, against a judge's decision that a tenancy, concerning land that the deceased had farmed prior to his death, had been validly terminated by the respondent landlords, and granting the latter possession of the farm. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant, through the evidence and argument she had presented at trial, had not persuaded the judge to find it more probable than not that the notice to quit had not been delivered, and that there was no basis on which, sitting on appeal, the court could say that the judge, to the contrary, should have been so persuaded.

Agent - Authority - Ostensible authority – . The claimants claimed that the defendant bank's predecessor had agreed to write off significant debts that they had owed to the bank. The Chancery Division, dismissing the claim for specific performance of that alleged agreement and allowing the defendant's counterclaim for the claimants' indebtedness, held that the letter purporting to establish the alleged agreement to write off the debts had been an attempted fraud by a former employee of the bank and the first claimant, and that even if the first claimant had been able to show that it was objectively reasonable for him to have believed that the employee had authority to agree to the write-off, or the limited authority to communicate it, the first claimant did not have any honest belief that the employee had any such authority.

Personal injuries – Damages. The claimant sought an indemnity from the Motor Insurers' Bureau for injuries that he sustained when he was struck by an uninsured vehicle on private land. At first instance the judge held that EU Directive (EC) 2009/103 relating to compulsory motor insurance had direct effect against the MIB as an emanation of the State, so that the MIB was liable to indemnify the claimant in respect of the injury suffered. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing MIB's appeal, held that, whilst the UK government had failed to fulfil its obligations under the 2009 Directive to ensure liability in respect of use of vehicles on private land, the MIB had had conferred on it the remedy for that failure.

Judicial review – Availability of remedy. The appellant's appeal against a refusal of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago to grant permission for judicial review was allowed in part. The Privy Council held that the appellant had an arguable claim for judicial review in relation to the defendant company's decision to refuse to disclose certain statements concerning a decision to withdraw a claim against its executive director.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Where the court had found that the mother had caused various physical injuries to one of her children, and emotional harm to the other child, it was held to be in the children's welfare that they should live in Portugal with the second respondent (the biological father of one of the children and the person registered as the father on the other child's Portuguese birth certificate) and his partner. The Family Division, in approving the applicant local authority's proposed plan and arrangement, concerning the children, held that it was clear, from the evidence, that the father and his partner were able to offer a good home to the children, that the risks posed by the mother and her lack of capability ruled her out as their potential carer and that it was not in their welfare to have anything other than supervised contact with her.

Arbitration – Agreement. In accordance with art 272 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court of Justice of the European Union had jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by or on behalf of the EU, whether that contract be governed by public or private law. In accordance with art 256(1) TFEU, the General Court generally had the jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance actions or proceedings referred to in art 272 TFEU. Consequently, the General Court granted the European Investment Bank judgment in default against Syria in relation to sums due under a loan agreement entered into by the parties concerning the reinforcement of the electricity distribution system in Syria, plus default interest on the principal amounts and the contractual interest.

Minor – Abduction. Neither of the defences relied on by the father had been established. Accordingly, the Family Division allowed the mother's application, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, for the child to be returned to New Zealand, in circumstances where the child had travelled to the UK to spend time with the father, but had not been returned to New Zealand, where he had been living with the mother.

Employment – Discrimination. It was not unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex discrimination, whether direct, indirect, or because the operation of the sex equality clause implied into all terms of work by s 66 of the Equality Act 2010, for men to be paid less on shared parental leave than birth mothers were paid on statutory maternity leave. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed appeals from two father's challenging the shared parental leave provisions of Children and Families Act 2014.

Practice – Pre trial or post judgment relied. On an appeal against a determination of whether the appellant mother had harmed her child, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowing the appeal by consent, made observations regarding the apparent common practice in the Family Court of parties requesting extensive clarification of draft judgments. The court stated that requests for clarification should not be routine and should only be made in accordance with a Practice Note set out in the authorities.