Latest Cases

Patent – Application. The Chancery Division held that an application brought by the defendant pharmaceutical company,Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG, to introduce new claims to a patent dispute would be dismissed, where the proposed use of a drug, to be used in a dry powder inhaler for the delivery of tiotropium bromide to the lung of a patient suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, was obvious and the new claims revealed no inventive step. 

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The Court of Appeal, in the circumstances, dismissed the defendant's appeal against an order declaring that the parties held the beneficial shares in their jointly owned as tenants in common in shares of 85% in favour of the claimant and 15% in favour of the defendant. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the respondent General Medical Council, finding charges against her proved and directing the appellant's erasure from the medical register. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that Panel had not been entitled to have made a finding of misconduct and dishonesty associated with one charge, but the serious misconduct and other findings of dishonesty, coupled with all the circumstances, had justified the Panel's conclusion. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The family Division, in an application for financial provision by the petitioner wife in relation to marital assets, held that the wife was entitled to half the assets which amounted to £8m and that the structure of the award was in the form of transfer of companies and a lump sum. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant retired chartered civil engineer sought to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the third defendant's appeal against the second defendant's refusal of planning permission and listed building consent. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the exclusion of the claimant's detailed solution to problems had not been unfair, a breach of the relevant rules had not caused prejudice and the claimant's qualifications had been considered. 

Limitation of action – Court's power to override time limit in personal injury or fatal accident claim. The Queen's Bench Division made decisions in the case for the purpose of s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 concerning when the claimant's date of knowledge had been in relation to an injury suffered at the second defendant hospital following the birth of her second child. The court further decided to disapply s 11 by using s 33 of the Act. 

Sale of goods – Payment. The Queen's Bench Division allowed a claim by American Express in respect of non-payment by the defendant on two accounts the Gold and Centurion account held by him with Amex. The court held that the Amex succeeded on a contractual basis and further the defendant's evidence in regard to being a victim of credit card fraud was inherently implausible. 

Company – Compulsory winding up. The claimant Secretary of State applied for the appointment of provisional liquidators to the defendant companies. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that jurisdiction existed because a winding-up petition had been presented which was likely to succeed and the appointment of a provisional liquidator was justified. 

European Union – Telecommunications. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things that, the concept of 'programme' within the meaning of art 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13/EU should be interpreted as including, under the sub-domain of a website of a newspaper, the provision of videos of short duration consisting of local news bulletins, sports and entertainment clips. 

Practice – Hearing. The Secretary of State applied for a declaration, under s 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, to permit her to make a closed material application. The Divisional Court, in exercising the discretion to make the declaration, found the statutory pre-condition and two conditions satisfied.