Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Pakistani national's appeal concerning the respondent Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant, as she was not satisfied that the English language proficiency requirement in the Immigration Rules had been met. Whatever might have been the subjective intention of the Secretary of State in drafting the relevant 'evidential flexibility policy', it was not accepted that it could be read as if circumscribed by para 245AA of the Immigration Rules. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed in part an appeal by the Treasury against the judge's determination of a preliminary issue regarding the claimant bank's entitlement to claim directly against the Treasury for the loss of earnings suffered by another bank of which the claimant was a 60% shareholder (PIB). PIB had standing to bring its own claim pursuant to s 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, the claimant had no standing to bring the claim as a matter of Strasbourg case law. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 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'. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellant charterer's appeal, held that the arrest of the respondent owner's vessel, due to a dispute between the receiver of cargo and the sub-sub charterer, could not be regarded as having been occasioned by the charterer's agents in the sense in which that word had been used in the time charter.