Latest Cases

Value added tax – Supply of goods and services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the action brought by way of judicial review by Telefonica Europe plc and Telefonica UK Ltd challenging a decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to change the method by which those companies had calculated the proportion of the monthly charge to customers for the supply of access to the mobile telephone network that related to such access used and enjoyed by customers outside the European Union. 

Negligence – Cause of action. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the claimants' case for negligence on the basis that it would not be fair just and reasonable for the defendant NHS Trust to impose a duty of care in circumstances where the defendant had just been treating the patient and not his wider family and that where the scope of the alleged duty had effectively been to inform a third party of a diagnosis reached in respect of a patient, there was insufficient proximity between the parties for such a duty to be imposed. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's appeal seeking variation or remission of a partial award made by an arbitrator in proceedings concerning a construction contract incorporating the JCT Conditions SBCSub/C2005 Rev 1 2007. The arbitrator had not erred in law in respect of his application of the burden of proof, his understanding of the principles set out in Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay[2012] All ER (D) 213 (Jul), and his finding that the defendant was entitled to statutory interest. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant solicitor had given negligent advice in relation to the identification of general conditions of service in the giving of advice in an employment termination agreement. If the claimant had been given correct non-negligent advice about the effect of the payment in lieu of notice clause on the vesting of the final 25 per cent of the long term incentive plan (LTIP), the CRU Group would have been able to avoid agreeing to the vesting of the remaining 25 per cent of the LTIP in the employment settlement agreement and side letter. 

Industrial training – Levy. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant company's application for judicial review of the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2015, SI 2015/701, in particular, art 7(2) of the Order which, read with art 7(3) and (4) of the Order, set the formula for calculating the amount of levy due in the third of three levy periods. The Order was not ultra vires, unfair or unlawful because it violated classic public law principles. 

Insurance – Contract of insurance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the true construction of an aggregation clause contained in an insurance policy applicable to all solicitors' indemnity policies, pursuant to the requirement in the Solicitors' Act 1974 for compulsory liability insurance for solicitors and the Minimum Terms and Conditions required to be incorporated into such polices. The true construction of the words 'in a series of matters or transactions' was that the matters or transactions had to have an intrinsic relationship with each other, not an extrinsic relationship with a third factor. 

Trade mark – Mark. The Chancery Division dismissed Cadbury's appeal against the decision of the hearing officer to refuse a request to delete a trade mark that included the use of a certain shade of purple in the packaging of goods. The hearing officer had not made a material error of principle in not accepting that the mark in issue was a series mark, and Cadbury's proposal was fundamentally flawed. 

Health and safety – Health and safety inspector. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant health and safety inspector's appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal, cancelling a notice prohibiting the respondent from carrying out further roofing works. The tribunal had failed to determine whether it would have issued the notice based on the information that the inspector had known, or ought to have known, when he had issued the notice and to recognise that, subject to reasonable practicality, the respondent had been obliged to provide sufficient work equipment to prevent a fall or minimise the distance and consequences of a fall. 

Children and young persons – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a mother's appeal against an order of the court that prevented her from naming her two children (who had been taken into care) 'Cyanide' and 'Preacher'. The naming of a child was an act of parental responsibility, the extent of which could be determined by a local authority. There was no restriction in the Children Act 1989 preventing an authority from overruling a parent in relation to a forename, but that was subject to a parent's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge had erred in finding that the authority could determine the mother's choice of name pursuant to s 33(3)(b) of the 1989 Act, where the proper route was for the matter to be put before the High Court by way of an application to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under s 100 of that Act. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Novomatic AG against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG concerning the application by the latter for registration of the figurative sign 'HOT JOKER' as an EU trade mark.