Latest Cases

Employment – Contract of employment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that, in considering a claimant's employment status, the ultimate question had to be the nature of the relationship during the period that the work was being done. However, it did not follow that the absence of mutuality of obligation outside that period might not influence, or shed light on, the character of the relationship within it. Its relevance would depend on the particular facts of the case, but to exclude consideration of it in limine ran counter to the repeated message of the authorities that it was necessary to consider all the circumstances. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant local planning authority's application for an order quashing the decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to permit development of a synagogue. The inspector had not given the required considerable importance and weight to the finding of harm to the synagogue, and its features of special architectural and historic interest or great weight to the conservation of the synagogue. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Peter Chung-Yuan Chang against a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, upholding an appeal by the intervener company, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH, against the Cancellation Division's decision, rejecting its application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the applicant's registration of the word mark 'AROMA'. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Application for disclosure. The Patents Court considered the issue of disclosure in a dispute relating to a guidance system for a robotic lawnmower. It held that, applying the correct approach under the CPR as it currently stood, an order for standard disclosure, or an order for issue based disclosure including the issue of obviousness, would not be in accordance with the overriding objective in the case. 

Sale of goods – Passing of property. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that arbitrators had correctly concluded that a contract for bunkers of fuel oil and gasoil had not been one of sale within s 2 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, with the result that the appellants could have no possible defence under s 49 of the Act to the claim for the price. Further, it was not subject to any implied term, regarding performance by the first respondent (or its parent company) of any supply contract higher up the chain, though it was, no doubt, subject to an implied promise by the first respondent that the first respondent was entitled to supply them to the appellants on terms permitting their use for the propulsion of the vessel before payment. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union partially allowed the action brought by Zuffa, LLC against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concerning its application for registration of the word mark 'ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP' as an European Union trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concerning an application by that company for registration of a figurative sign 'Mark1' as a European Union trade mark. 

Contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court made rulings concerning three contracts between the parties, in a dispute about the defendant company's entitlement to payment under a 'team partnering agreement' and two supplementary agreements, and the extent to which that payment required satisfaction of various stated key performance indicators. 

Bankruptcy – Privilege. The Chancery Division ruled that the claimant's trustees in the bankruptcy had acquired the benefit of his legal professional privilege with respect to one of three categories of documents held by the second defendant solicitors, who were also acting for the claimant's creditor (A). Both A and the claimant had been engaged in hostile litigation. In all the circumstances, no order was granted requiring the solicitors to cease acting for the trustees. However, an injunction was granted requiring the solicitors to cease acting for A. 

Commons – Registration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the dismissal of their claim for judicial review of the defendant commons registration authority's decision refusing their application to register rights of common under the Commons Act 2006 on the basis that a right of common could not be created by prescription after 2 January 1970 over land that had been registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965.