Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division allowed the defendants' application to discharge a freezing order made against them in a dispute concerning a family business that rented and owned a range of properties. The claimants had conceded that there was no evidence of actual dissipation of assets, and the court found that there was insufficient evidence of a propensity to dissipate assets to justify the continuation of the order. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG (Henkell) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkell and Ciacci Piccolomini d'Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola, regarding the application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'Piccolomini' as a Community trade mark. 

Environment – Protection. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant Environment Agency's appeal against the Crown Court's decision, allowing the respondent houseboat owners' appeals against their convictions for keeping an unregistered vessel on a waterway. A 'vessel', under art 2 of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010, SI 2010/699, was something 'constructed or used' either to 'carry' people or things, or to be 'propelled or moved' across or through the water and the houseboats were not 'vessels'. 

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the employment tribunal's decision to debar the appellant employer from taking any further part in the proceedings, whether in relation to liability or remedies, in both claims brought by the respondent employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had been right to have determined that the employment tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its decision to enable the parties, in particular the employer, to know why they had won or lost. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' applications for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded. A return to Bulgaria would not risk exposing them to a breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and there was no significant risk of refoulement. 

Adjudication – Jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction court held that, applying settled law to the facts, there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice where an adjudicator had held that time had been set at large such that the claimant property developer was not entitled to liquidated damages from the defendant contractor as claimed. Accordingly no declaratory relief was granted on that issue. However, the court held that the adjudicator had acted outside his jurisdiction in holding that a reasonable time for completion was 5 March 2016 and declaratory relief was granted on that issue. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant former wife's appeal in financial remedy proceedings, held that the judge had had power to make the relevant consent order concerning periodical payments, and he ought not to have set it aside. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Sparkasse Allgäu and the Kempten tax office, Germany, concerning the refusal of that credit institution to disclose to the Kempten tax office information relating to the accounts held with its dependent branch established in Austria by persons who, at the time of their death, had their place of residence for tax purposes in Germany. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Latvia to face prosecution for four thefts alleged to have been committed in 2007. In particular, it rejected the submission that he should have been discharged because the issue of his surrender was res judicata on account of his discharge in Scotland in extradition proceedings for substantially the same matters, as the principle of res judicata had no application in extradition proceedings. 

Khan v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & others