Listed for two days from Tuesday 15 January 2013 is the appeal of Schutz Ltd v Werit Ltd, heard by a panel of five (L Neuberger, L Walker, L Hale, L Mance, L Kerr). The case concerns a patent infringement claim – the respondent owns the patent to a large container used for transporting liquids. The appellant company manufactured a replacement part for the container, and the issue is whether providing the replacement of part of a patented product amounted to “making” that product and thereby infringing the rights of the patentee under the Patents Act 1977, s 60(1)(a). Case details are available here.

On Thursday 17 January 2013 in Courtroom 1 is Sharif v The London Borough of Camden. The appellant council were under a statutory duty under the Housing Act 1996, Pt 7 to provide suitable accommodation to the respondent “together with” dependent members of her family. The accommodation offered by the council was refused by the respondent as it comprised two separate units, and the council contended that the two flats offered were on the same floor in close proximity. It is for the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the term “available for occupation” in of the Housing Act 1996, s 176. Here are the case details.

In Courtroom 2 of the Supreme Court on Thursday 17 January 2013 is the matter of Hayes v Willoughby. The appellant had sought to persuade law enforcement authorities to investigate the respondent, his former employer. He continued with this campaign despite being informed that his allegations had been unsubstantiated following investigation, and the respondent issued a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This hearing will clarify the scope of the “purpose of preventing or detecting crime” defence to a claim for protection from harassment under s 1(3)(a) of the 1997 Act; that is, whether the conduct has to have the sole purpose of preventing or detecting crime. Case details are linked to here.

There are no judgments scheduled to be handed down in the Supreme Court this week, and no hearings or hand-downs in the Privy Council.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

Stanford International Bank Ltd (acting by its joint liquidators) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, heard 23 – 25 January 2012.

HMRC v Loyalty Management UK Ltd, heard 24 – 25 October 2012.

R (on the application of Prudential plc & Anor) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor, heard 5 – 7 November 2012.

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors, heard 12 – 14 November 2012.

R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor and R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice & The Parole Board, heard 19 – 21 November 2012.

O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, heard 21 – 22 November 2012.

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group Plc, heard 27 – 28 November 2012.

Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson & Ors, heard 4 December 2012.

B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 5 December 2012.

Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland, heard 6 December 2012.

In the matter of Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd & Anor v Financial Services Authority, heard 10 – 11 December 2012.

Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc & Ors, heard 12 – 13 December 2012.

In the matter of J (Children), heard 17 – 19 December 2012.