Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection made an order revoking the appointment of the patient's two children and appointing a person from a solicitors' firm to be the patient's deputy for property and affairs. The revocation was made on the basis that the children were not fulfilling their duties having regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Code of Practice. 

Libel and slander – Damages. The Queen's Bench Division assessed damaged in a defamation action in which the defendant had posted serious allegations of a defamatory nature against each of the individual claimants and Blackpool Football club. The allegations were of a sexual nature and of fraud and corruption thus entitling the individual claimants to damages of £20,000 each and to the club of £1000. 

Order – Amendment. The Technology and Construction Court, in a case concerning the interpretation of a complex contract, dismissed the defendant's application to amend an order that there be a statement of agreed facts by adding a requirement that it should include background matters relevant to the dispute and a chronology of factual matrix documentation. The amendment sought was unnecessary and unduly prescriptive as well as going beyond what was contemplated by the order that there be a statement of agreed facts. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Editions Quo Vadis (Editions) 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 Mr Francisco Gómez Hernández and Éditions, regarding the application by the former for registration of the word sign 'QUO VADIS' as a Community word mark. 

Drugs – Drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the opening words of s 79(2) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, should be interpreted as if they read 'where, before or after a period of imprisonment or other detention has been imposed'. 

Practice – Procedure. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendants' application for summary judgment on a claim by investors of a Jersey Trust, which alleged that the defendants were liable for the loss of the entire value of their investment due to a breach of duty to take all reasonable care to ensure that facts stated in an information memorandum (IM), given to potential investors, were true and accurate. Even if the court was required to apply settled law and identify the direct consequences of the valuation being inaccurate, the claimants had real prospects of establishing that the loss they had suffered on their investment was attributable to the alleged inadequacies in the IM and, accordingly, the case should go to trial. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a wife's application for the committal to prison of her husband for failure to comply with two specific disclosure orders in ancillary relief proceedings. The orders had been validly served by email as ordered by the court and the application notice had been served by the same method. The judge dispensed with the need for personal service and concluded that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband had not only failed to comply, but had been defiant in his refusal. The sentence was backed by a request for a European arrest warrant. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused to grant injunctions in respect of proprietary claims, on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried and that it was not just and convenient to grant a freezing injunction. 

Sale of goods – Motor car. The Commercial Court considered, as a preliminary issue, challenges to the ownership of the chassis and spare parts of an extremely rare Ferrari car. It dismissed the objections raised by the first and second defendants, and held that, at the relevant time, the fourth defendant had had title to the car, including the spare parts. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection authorised the use of necessary physical restraint as would enable the investigations in a medical hospital to be carried out on the patient who was being detained under s 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.