Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant local authority's appeal against an order designating it as the authority responsible for an eight-month-old baby, held that, given that the test for ordinary residence was one of fact and should not be made into an overly complicated exercise, there was no basis for concluding that the judge's decision was perverse. It had been reasoned and clear and, in all the circumstances, unassailable. 

Firearms – Prohibited weapons. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the Firearms Act 1982, of itself, had not created any offence. It had widened the scope of the Firearms Act 1968 so as to cover imitation firearms which were readily convertible into firearms to which s 1 of the 1968 Act applied. Accordingly, in the particular circumstances, the defendant's appeal against a conviction for possessing a prohibited firearm, contrary to s 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act, would be dismissed. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Franmax UAB (Franmax) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concerning opposition proceedings between Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu and Franmax, regarding the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'Dino', depicting a dinosaur, as a European Union trade mark. 

European Union – Common foreign and security policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union, Fifth Chamber, dismissed the Council of the European Union's appeal against the annulment of Council Decisions to include the applicant Iranian bank on a list of persons or entities regarded as being involved in nuclear proliferation in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413 and repealing and Implementing Regulation No 668/2010, and other Decisions, in so far as those acts concerned the applicant. 

Contract – Sale of Goods – Relevancy and specification of averments. Sheriff Court: In an action in which the pursuers, who purchased 5000 roofing tiles from the defenders in 2003 and 2004, sought damages for breach of contract, averring that the tiles had suffered severe discolouration, and contending that the defenders were in breach of implied terms as to the satisfactory quality of the goods supplied, the court concluded that the pursuers' averments anent pecuniary loss should be allowed to go to proof, however those regarding a manufacturers' guarantee in relation to the tiles were irrelevant, those relating to the tiles' conformity or otherwise with British Standards were lacking in specification, and those anent rejection of the tiles did not disclose a tenable claim for rejection and accordingly should be deleted. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding that the appellant had been in breach of a freezing order and, therefore, in contempt of court. The judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he had on the evidence that had been before him and it was impossible to say that the penalty imposed (a suspended sentence of imprisonment) had been excessive. 

Contract – Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil, Division, allowed the first defendant's appeal against the judge's finding that it had been in breach of an exclusive supply agreement, under which it agreed to purchase from the first claimant all its requirements of certain electric motors and leadframe assemblies identified or covered by it, by purchasing 'Gen 2' motors from another firm. On the principal issue, it held that it had not been open to the judge to have interpreted the terms of the agreement in the way he had. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a local authority's appeal against the dismissal by Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) of its application for the respondent to undergo three examinations and assessments related to his judicial review of the authority's age assessment of him, otherwise his application should be struck out or stayed. The judge had erred in distinguishing past authority on the basis that it applied to private, and not public, law proceedings. The examination and assessments sought by the authority had been reasonably necessary to have enabled it to defend the challenge to its age assessment and it had been unreasonable for the respondent to have refused to give his consent. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant banks' application to strike out parts of a claim arising from the extension of a loan facility to a company that managed business parks, which had entered administration. The court allowed in part an application by the claimants to amend the claim, in that it was necessary to refine the proposed amended pleading in order to refer solely to the named individuals who had been employed by the banks at the time of the alleged conspiracy, for whom it was vicariously liable. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimants' claim that the defendant advisory company had been negligent in its report on commercial due diligence in the purchase of a company by the claimants. The analysis provided by the defendant had been entirely reasonable and complete on the basis of the information provided to it. It had not acted in breach of duty or negligently in any respect.