The Queen’s Bench Division dismissed an application by two Burmese men accused of murdering British citizens in Thailand to view a report compiled by a British police team relating to the Thai investigation.
The claimant, Freddie Starr, issued proceedings against the defendant for slander and libel for words spoken and subsequently broadcast on the BBC and ITV, and contained in an ebook she published.
In a case where the relevant health care trust wished to discontinue life-sustaining treatment with the inevitable consequence that as a result the patient would quickly die, the Court of Protection held that having regard to the diagnosis of the patient by experts, the balance lay strongly in favour of preserving P’s life through continuing treatment.
A child had been made the subject of non-molestation injunctions, which extended to her mother, while she was a ward of court. As the child approached her 18th birthday, the mother applied to court for an extension of the injunction to extend indefinitely beyond the conclusion of the wardship proceedings.
Ex parte wardship proceedings were brought in respect of four children, all British citizens, as there were reasonable grounds for believing that the entire family had left the UK to join Islamic State in Syria.
The full judgment in Simply Pleasure’s challenge to local authorities charging fees that could be used to pay for enforcing a regulatory regime.
The Court of Appeal considered appeals by both parties in proceedings brought by the Mattel, which controlled the rights in the well-known game Scrabble in the European Union, to prevent the respondent company (Zynga) from selling an electronic game called Scramble or Scramble with Friends.
The Supreme Court held that none of the exceptions to the general approach applicable to awards of costs in children’s cases as set out in Re T (Children)  applied in the present case.
The court had booked two interpreters, but they were not provided and a hearing was adjourned. The local authority sought recovery of its costs of that hearing against Capita, which is contracted to provide interpreters.
Following concerns about the safety of the claimant’s factory in Bangladesh, Primark withdrew its outstanding contracts with the claimant. The claimant brought a claim for damages for alleged defamatory statements published by Primark. Primark applied for the claim to be struck out as an abuse of process.
Prisoners complained that they were prevented from voting in elections, relying on article 3 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in allowing the application, held that there had been a violation of article 3, given that the impugned legislation remained unamended after the court’s decision in Greens v United Kingdom .
G-Star brought proceedings against the defendants, alleging that they had been involved in alleged infringement in the UK unregistered design rights in the design of a pair of jeans.
The defendant disputed the costs that related to the period when the claimant had been acting through a deputy appointed on her behalf.
In claims by many hundreds of Iraqi civilians against the defendant Ministry of Defence for damages for their allegedly unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces, the preliminary issue was whether the claims were barred by an applicable statute of limitations.
The claimant issued proceedings against Sotheby’s alleging negligence in its investigation of a painting, which is purported to be by Caravaggio.
The claimant Law Society applied for an injunction making permanent prohibitions against the defendant, S, to prevent him holding himself out as a solicitor or becoming involved with legal work.
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (the trust) against certain orders for costs made during the course of proceedings in respect of the administration of the estate of Jimmy Savile. Its appeal against various other orders was dismissed.
In the course of litigation following ‘Plebgate’, the claimant police officers sought judicial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s decision to re-determine the mode of investigation of them.
Certain preliminary issues came to be tried in more than 600 High Court cases in which Iraqi civilians are claiming damages from the Ministry of Defence for their allegedly unlawful detention and alleged ill-treatment by British armed forces in Iraq.
In financial proceedings the Family Division imposed a costs penalty on the husband. The judge commented on the scale of the costs incurred by the parties, which he described as ‘totally disproportionate’.
Maryam Rajavi, the exiled Iranian politician, appeals against the home secretary’s decision to ban her from entering the UK on the ground that her presence would not be conducive to the public good.
The ‘Naked Rambler’ issued proceedings concerning his arrests, prosecutions, convictions and sentences of imprisonment, invoking, in particular, articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The employment tribunal found that, when the appellant was providing her services through a limited company for the purpose of selling Shiseido cosmetic products in a duty-free outlet managed by the respondent, she was not an employee of the respondent for the purposes of section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
The proceedings arose out of a serious fire at the Sugar Hut Club, Essex in 2009. A dispute arose as to, among other things, the amount of business interruption losses to which the claimants were entitled. In particular, the parties disagreed as to the calculation of the overall loss of turnover.
Following a previous judgment on questions of law in deprivation of liberty cases involving adults who lacked capacity, the Court of Protection supplemented and elaborated on some of those questions.
The court found a judge had erred in ordering revocation of a Specsavers trademark where evidence that use of the wordless logo together with the registered word trademark superimposed over the top had served to identify the goods.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed an appeal against convictions for robbery, in circumstances where the evidence that had been critical to the convictions related to admissions allegedly made to police officers who were part of a now-discredited crime squad.
A dispute arose over the pop track Heartbroken and at an earlier hearing a judge held that the performer’s rights relating to the vocal at the centre of the dispute belonged to the claimant. These proceedings concerned damages.
The Family Division held that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 did not have the effect of preventing the court from making a parental order.
The claimants sought judicial review of the lord chancellor’s decisions that there would be 525 duty provider work contracts and an average immediate reduction of 8.75% in criminal legal aid fees.
Skyscanner appealed against the Office of Fair Trading’s decision, accepting commitments from intervening companies in the hotel industry to modify their behaviour by limited discounting of room-only rates to closed groups.
A full report of the judgment in the costs case related to Marley v Rawlings, in which parents had each signed the wrong mirror will.
The claimant Pakistani national challenged the home secretary’s refusal of a British passport to which she claimed to be entitled as a British citizen by descent.
The Commercial Court dismissed the claimants’ application for an injunction pursuant to section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to restrain the first defendant from pursuing or taking any step in proceedings commenced against the second and third claimants in the supreme court of New York.
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on an appeal by Bookit Ltd against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners which had decided that credit and debit card handling fees were not exempt from a European directive and should be standard rated.
The claimant had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. The claimant and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation.
The first claimant owned two UK patents for an invention entitled ‘flying shark’ and the second claimant was the exclusive licensee of the first claimant in respect of both patents. The defendant devised and imported toys for sale in the UK, in particular, flying fish known as ‘mega fliers’.