Click the case name for better results:

Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt and others: FD 7 Oct 2004

Charlotte Wyatt was born prematurely, and depended for day to day her life on medical support. Her doctors asked to be permitted not to resuscitate her again if she needed it. Her parents asked that she be given whatever chance was available for her to live. Held: ‘On the basis of the unanimous medical evidence … Continue reading Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt and others: FD 7 Oct 2004

Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others: CA 25 Jun 2004

The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use. Held: The judge worked within a strict statutory framework. His task was to calculate the application of that law, … Continue reading Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others: CA 25 Jun 2004

Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc: HL 21 Oct 2004

The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’). Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance was addressed would have understood the author to be using the words to mean. Notice, however, that … Continue reading Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc: HL 21 Oct 2004

Genentech’s (Human Growth Hormone) Patent: ChD 1987

The applicant sought a patent for a hormone: ‘It is trite law that you cannot patent a discovery, but if on the basis of that discovery you can tell people how it can be usefully employed, then a patentable invention may result. This in my view would be the case, even though once you have … Continue reading Genentech’s (Human Growth Hormone) Patent: ChD 1987

AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust: QBD 26 Mar 2004

Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

CM v The Executor of The Estate of EJ and Others: FD 14 Jun 2013

CM, a medical doctor stoppd in the street and atended a woman who had fallen from a building, and later died. In caring for her, she had contact with the lady’s blood. Her own hands had broken skin, anf being afraid of blood borne disease sought an order for blood to be taken for analysis. … Continue reading CM v The Executor of The Estate of EJ and Others: FD 14 Jun 2013

Re JS (Disposal of Body): FD 10 Nov 2016

Child’s Wish for post-mortem cryonic Preservation JS, a child of 14, anticipating her death from cancer expressed the desire that her body should receive cryonic preservation in the hope that one day a treatment might be available to allow her to be revived, and proceedings were issued. Her parents were divorced, and they differed as … Continue reading Re JS (Disposal of Body): FD 10 Nov 2016

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SCS 8 Jan 2010

The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise have amounted to personal injury. Pleural plaques are physical changes in the pleura, detectable radiologically as … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SCS 8 Jan 2010

Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999

The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear idea of when it would be possible for him … Continue reading Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm: HL 25 Jun 2008

Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make reasonable adjustments. Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded. … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm: HL 25 Jun 2008

In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The parents, devout Roman Catholics, resisted. Held: The parents’ views were subject to the overriding … Continue reading In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

In re J (a Minor) (Wardship: Medical treatment): CA 1 Oct 1990

J was born at 27 weeks’, weighing only 1.1kg. He suffered very severe and permanent brain damage at the time of his birth, the brain tissue then lost being irreplaceable. He was epileptic and the medical evidence was that he was likely to develop serious spastic quadriplegia, would be blind and deaf and was unlikely … Continue reading In re J (a Minor) (Wardship: Medical treatment): CA 1 Oct 1990

Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance): HL 13 Mar 2003

Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act. Held: The challenge failed. The court was to give effect to the intentions of … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance): HL 13 Mar 2003

Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of): SC 25 Jun 2014

Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to prosecutions of those who are alleged to have assisted a … Continue reading Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of): SC 25 Jun 2014

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the council sought possession when it discovered that he had sublet. Held: Section 23(3)(c) … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992

Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the cost to the employer, or … Continue reading Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992