Betrayal of confidence in the Court of Appeal

In overturning Latham J's judgment in R v Department of Health, Ex Parte Source Informatics Ltd. that anonymisation does not obviate breaching a personal confidence, the Court of Appeal holds that where the duty of confidence arises in equity it does not prohibit the confidant using the confided information without the consent of the confider if this does not treat the confider unfairly (relative to the Court's view of the confider's legitimate interests). We argue that this principle--by bringing fairness to bear on the scope of the duty of confidence rather than on whether a breach of it may be lawful--has no authority in usable precedents; that the Court's interpretation of fairness in applying this principle is, in any event, incompatible with the Data Protection Act 1998 (in part because the Court has too narrow a conception of privacy); that the Court errs in holding that neither anonymisation of personal data nor use of anonymous data falls under the Data Protection Act; and that the Court's insensitivity to the vulnerability that leads patients to disclose information about themselves to health professionals for their treatment, leads it to misidentify the basis of the duty of confidence in such disclosures. The Court of Appeal's reasoning does not clarify the duty of confidence, but virtually abolishes it in the face of competing commercial and research interests.     

Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

The advantages held by haves over have nots in litigation have long fascinated scholars, with a long line of research revealing that litigant status often affects litigant resources, experience, and chances of overall success from trial courts to appellate courts. What has received considerably less attention, however, is how this status affects the decision to appeal. Bringing a new perspective to this important area holding implications for the shape and content of the judicial hierarchy, this study analyzes the decision of the losing federal district court litigant to appeal to the US courts of appeals. Utilizing an original database containing a sample of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and 2004, the results indicate, as predicted, that litigant status differentials affect whether there will be an appeal. This influence is further magnified when conditioned upon the relative costs of the appeal. These findings provide one of the first detailed examinations of litigant status and appeals coming from US trial courts and, simultaneously, offer the first empirical evidence to date that business litigants, like previously known government parties, are advantaged over individuals when deciding whether to appeal.     

Don't Mention the War: The Court of Appeal,the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland

Despite the vast transitional justice scholarship relating to prisoner release, amnesties and prosecutions when conflicts end, there is a significant gap in practice and academic literature regarding wrongful convictions. Uniquely amongst post‐conflict societies, Northern Ireland has a body for investigating miscarriages of justice, albeit one designed for ‘ordinary’ appeals. In the absence of a formal truth‐recovery process, criminal appeals are becoming a proxy for addressing the role of the state during ‘The Troubles,’ as well as remedying individual injustices. This article examines the approach of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal during the conflict. It charts the developments in its decision‐making following the cease‐fires and the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It concludes that the current system is unsatisfactory as it ignores the effects of the conflict on the appeal process and offers no insights into the role of the Court during the conflict. Alternative models are suggested.     

BHB falls at the final hurdle (UK Court of Appeal)

In July 2005 the Court of Appeal allowed William Hill's appealagainst Laddie J's decision that the company infringed BHB'sdatabase right in pre-race data by publishing lists of horsesrunning in races on its website; the significance of this case,though, goes far beyond William Hill's website.     

The Standard of Review Strikes Back: the US-Korea Drams Appeal

This article contains a brief analysis of how the WTO AppellateBody identified and applied a standard of review in the recentUS–Korea DRAMS Appeal and its implications for this aspectof WTO jurisprudence in the future. Section I discusses theformulation of the objective assessment test and its developmentthrough subsequent cases. Section II sets out the backgroundto the US–Korea DRAMS decision and summarizes the reasoningof the Appellate Body in determining that the panel had notcomplied with its obligations under Article 11 of the DisputeSettlement Understanding. Section III discusses the implicationsof this decision for panels and parties. It is suggested thatthis decision evidences the significant development of the standardof review under the WTO dispute-settlement system. However,it is suggested that the standard is becoming more complex innature, and it may be increasingly difficult for panels to complywith Article 11 without a clear restatement of applicable principlesby the Appellate Body.     

Markem v Zipher--the Court of Appeal provides guidance on entitlement proceedings

Legal and practical context. The Markem v Zipher Court of Appealjudgment provides useful guidance on patent entitlement proceedingsand, more generally, on the conduct of litigation. Key points. (i) Patent entitlement. To bring an entitlementaction under sections 8, 12, and 37 a party must invoke a breachof some rule of law. Validity is only relevant in entitlementproceedings where a patent or part of it is clearly and unarguablyinvalid. A claim-by-claim approach is not appropriate in proceedingsunder sections 8, 12, and 37 and ‘invention’ inthese sections refers to information in the specification. Theproper approach to entitlement should be to identify who contributedto the invention and determine whether he has any rights tothe invention. (ii) Litigation generally. A witness should be cross-examinedas to the truthfulness of his evidence whenever a party wishesto challenge that evidence. Where a party has more than onecause of action relating to the same factual background, considerationshould be given to bringing all causes of action in the sameproceedings to avoid a future claim being struck out for abuseof process. Practical significance. This case highlights the importanceof a properly pleaded case and of the ongoing need to reviewthe case strategy throughout proceedings.     

Court of Appeal hears 'huge money' divorce case involving offshore trusts

On 7 March, Mr and Mrs John Charman's ‘huge money’divorce reached the Court of Appeal. Last year insurance magnateJohn Charman was ordered by the High Court to pay his formerwife £48 million in what is thought to be the biggestdivorce award in legal history. (See Trusts & Trustees,Volume 12, Issue 9, November 2006, High-value divorces and trusts,p 22, by James Freeman of Speechly Bircham LLP). James Freeman, family law solicitor at City law firm SpeechlyBircham LLP (tel. 020 7427 6584), commented on the case:

TheCourt of Appeal will rule on how parties with unusually highwealth, including offshore trust assets, should be treated ondivorce.     

Court of Appeal decision on the Design Directive shades Animal from Oakley's designs

The Court of Appeal rejects the claimant's argument that, sincethe government failed properly to implement the Directive 98/71on the legal protection of designs, the transitional provisionson validity in new law of registered designs were partiallyinvalid and that, therefore, their registered design was valid.     

Pettis v. Smith and Braddock. In the Louisiana Court of Appeal

HOLDING: Tube feeding may be withheld or withdrawn from a person in a persistent semi-conscious state even though her living will did not explicitly decline tube feeding, and there is no clear and convincing evidence of her intention to decline tube feeding.     

BC Court of Appeal refuses to reduce sentence for HIV-positive prisoner

On 9 May 2002, the BC Court of Appeal released its decision in a prisoner's sentencing appeal where the Crown and the defence agreed that the original sentence was illegal, and differed in their positions as to the appropriate sentence by only one day. That one day meant the difference between serving the sentence in a provincial jail as opposed to a federal penitentiary.     

Court of Appeal considers burden of proof in breach of confidence cases

The Court of Appeal considered the burden of proof where a copyof a product was allegedly made in breach of confidence andfound that, because the trial judge had not misdirected himself,it was not for the Court of Appeal to look at whether therehad been copying.     

我国行政上诉制度之检讨与完善——由一起具体案件引发的思考

由于现行《行政诉讼法》对行政上诉条件的规定失之于宽,从而增添了许多不必要的诉讼,并引发诉讼费用征收标准及负担原则上的悖论。为避免上诉权的滥用,充分发挥二审程序的制度功能,应从制度上对当事人的上诉予以适当的限制,并完善我国行政裁判的纠正制度。     

Case report: Court of Appeal clarifies the law on downloading pornography from the Web

In the recent years the law courts had to deal with a considerable number of cases involving child pornography received or downloaded through the Internet.¹ Moreover, there has been a considerable number of appeals involving not only sentencing issues but also the interpretation provided to the making offences under section 1(1) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) since the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Bowden.² The Court of Appeal has now had an opportunity to explain the law. Yaman Akdeniz reports.