Latest Cases

Injunction – Mandatory injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against a mandatory injunction and an order directing that an application to commit him for failure to comply with that order might be treated as duly served on him pursuant to CPR 6.15(2). There had been no error in granting the mandatory injunction or ordering substituted service. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, on an application by the Office of Public Guardian held that the patient's daughter, A, was not acting in the best interests of the patient under the lasting power of attorney (LPA), revoked the LPA and appointed A to act as the patient's deputy for property and affairs by virtue of s 58(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

Copyright – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court dismissed the claimants' claim against the defendants for passing off and infringement of copyright in respect of the use of a trade name 'Hidden Gem', a logo and a photograph concerning jewellery where the acts complained of had been licensed at the relevant time. 

Building contract – Judgment. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant, The Dorchester Group Ltd, was not entitled to judgment, pursuant to CPR 14.1, on its claim alleging that the defendant company had, contrary to a contract, failed to disclose to Dorchester certain discounts obtained from its mechanical and electrical sub-contractors. There was nothing on the face of the letter relied on by Dorchester that amounted to an admission, within the meaning of CPR 14.1, that it were liable to Dorchester for all undisclosed discounts. The court further made specific disclosure orders in respect of some, but not all categories of documents in respect of which Dorchester sought specific disclosure. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division considered the validity of two claims in a patent dispute concerning a technique to prevent the corrosion of rebars used in reinforced concrete. The court held that claim 1 of the patent, which described a method, was valid but not infringed. However, claim 12 of the patent, which described a product suitable for use in the technique, was invalid. 

Evidence – Burden of proof. In deciding whether the claimant's claim for trespass to person against the defendant football club and coach had succeeded, the court having considered the evidence on a burden of proof basis, found that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof which rested on him, and accordingly the claim would be dismissed. 

Contract – Agency agreement. The Mercantile Court ruled on a preliminary issue in a dispute between the defendant fashion company and the claimant sales agency. It held that it was possible to sever an invalid proviso from the contract between the parties, with the result that the claimant would be entitled to an indemnity, rather than compensation on the termination of its agency. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, concerning the interpretation of art 168 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112. The request had been made in proceedings between 'Sveda' UAB (Sveda) and the State Tax Inspectorate under the Ministry of Finance of Lithuania; concerning a decision refusing deduction of the input VAT paid by Sveda in the context of the creation of a Baltic mythology recreational and discovery path. 

Medical negligence – Childbirth – Birth injury – Liability. Court of Session: In an action by a mother seeking damages on behalf of her minor son who, it was averred, sustained a severe brachial plexus injury in the course of his birth which resulted in permanent disability, the court concluded that the pursuer's son suffered a severe brachial plexus injury to his right shoulder during the birth process as a result of the negligence of the defenders' employee, the senior midwife present at the birth, and sustained the pursuer's pleas in law to the extent of the sum agreed as quantum, namely £725,000. 

Arbitration – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court considered the amounts owed to the claimant company following a number of adjudications in a construction dispute. The court made rulings as to the sums owed and the amounts payable.