Latest Cases

Capital gains tax – Disposal of assets. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant taxpayer's appeal, held that enterprise investment scheme relief applied in priority to taper relief, when calculating capital gains tax, in a case in which the asset disposed of had been used for both business and non-business purposes.

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing their written representations appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to grant planning approval. The inspector had not failed to apply the relevant legislation, provide adequate reasoning or make sufficient inquiry.

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 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. 

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. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that it had been proved on the evidence that the deceased had suffered an actionable injury as a result of the totality of his exposure to asbestos, to which the defendant had made a material contribution and there was no need to prove that the contribution of itself had given rise to a discernible or measurable injury.