Latest Cases

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that in the circumstances, a custodial sentence which did not include a finding of dangerousness, under s 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, was unduly lenient. An extended sentence as imposed. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held that a word mark 'CASPIAN', registered in respect of restaurants and related services had been invalidly registered, pursuant to s 5(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and art 4(4)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive. Another mark had been validly registered, neither of the trade marks had been infringed by the defendants and the claimant's action for passing off failed. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal against a deportation decision, held that First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) had taken into account all the relevant considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The FTT had not made any express reference to Üner v The Netherlands ([2006] 3 FCR 340) or Maslov v Austria ([2008] ECHR 1638/03), but it had not needed to since: (i) it had had regard to all the relevant considerations; and (ii) the appellant had not been lawfully present in the United Kingdom. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the minimum term of nine years and three months imposed on the defendant, and substituted it for a sentence of eight years and nine months' imprisonment. The judge had not had the power to 'increase' the minimum term because the offence for which the defendant had received a suspended sentence had not been a 'specified serious offence'. 

Medical practitioner – Appeal against determination of disciplinary committee. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant registered nurse's appeal against a 12-month suspension order imposed by a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the panel) of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council. The panel's judgment had been both reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case, and its reasons had met the required standard. 

Competition – Rules on completion. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant medical reporting organisation's challenge to the legality of part of the government's reforms to handling soft tissue whiplash claims. The system was not incompatible with national and European competition law, as the interested party had not abused a dominant position in the relevant market by administering the system in accordance with the requirements imposed by the defendant Secretary of State. 

Dentist – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant clinical dental technician's appeal against his suspension from the dental care professionals register for 12 months. The decision relating to sanction and the reasoning behind it had been entirely appropriate, and the appellant had no legitimate grounds upon which to successfully challenge them. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Application for disclosure. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed two applications made by the claimant local authority. The authority sought to bring proceedings against the defendant project manager in relation to defects in a construction project. The court held that the authority's application for disclosure of documents was hopeless, and there was no justification for allowing its application to extend time for service of the particulars of claim. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Company documents. The Chancery Division considered an application by the first and third defendants to restrict disclosure in proceedings relating to certain documents concerning the divorce proceedings of the first defendant. The court held that the majority of the documents in issue would be made available to the media. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division in a case management hearing heard issues on the legal principles to be applied to s 8 of the Security and Justice Act 2013 (the disclosure stage). It decided that the application of the common law and the application of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights reached precisely the same destination, namely, where material could not revealed in full it should be summarised as fully as possible consistent with the statute.