Latest Cases

Criminal law – Assault. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to a simple caution administered on her by the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner for an alleged offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Commissioner had not breached para 76 of the Ministry of Justice guidance 'Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders' by having stated that the alleged victim had had a broken nose, when it had only been suspected that her nose had been broken. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that it would not be right to make a declaration that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was incompatible with Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically, in the present case, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor would it be appropriate to make a declaration that the 'stop and search' that the claimant had experienced had not been in accordance with the law. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a nine-year-and-four-month extended sentence, for the offence of rape, comprising a custodial term of five-years-and-four-months, plus an extended licence period of four years was unduly lenient in the circumstances. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a 12-year extended sentence, comprising of a custodial term of 7-and-a-half years, plus an extended licence period of 4-and-a-half years. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited (Sony) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony and Marpefa, SL, concerning the application by the predecessor of the latter company for registration of a figurative sign 'Vieta' as a Community trade mark. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of six years' imprisonment for the offences of attempted rape and sexual assault was not unduly lenient. The judge's reduction of two years from the eight-year starting point for the attempted rape offence was very generous, but was not unduly lenient. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division dismissed applications by the claimant and defendant for summary judgment in respect of a claim for breach of contract and a defence, respectively, where the issue concerned the true consideration due under an asset sale agreement. The evidence currently available did not enable the court to accept that the broadly pleaded case was bound to succeed, nor that it was bound to fail. Further, the court did not accept that the defence was sufficiently shadowy to justify only conditional permission to defend. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division held that the claimant bank was entitled to possession of a property as against the defendant company. There was no defence to the claim, because the lease had been granted without the bank's written consent contrary to the express terms of two charges by which the defendant had charged the property with the repayment of sums due to the bank. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Hikari Miso Ltd (Hikari) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd and Hikari concerning the application by the latter company for registration of the word mark 'Hikari' as a Community trade mark. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's application for an interim payment in the amount of £1,203,300, to fund expenses in the present period before trial in about 2.5 years under CPR 25.7(4). 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The Commercial Court dismissed applications by the claimant company for specific disclosure and further information from the defendant, Barclays Bank plc, against which a claim had been brought for allegedly mis-selling an interest rate swap. The court was not satisfied that the documents would be relevant and, therefore, admissible as similar fact evidence. Further, to require Barclays to undertake the search and disclosure exercise proposed would be disproportionate and oppressive.