Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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'. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) quashed the decision of the defendant First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT), granting the Secretary of State an extension of time to appeal against its decision allowing the claimant's application for permission to appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to remove him to Italy. In consequence, its decision granting permission to appeal was also quashed. It could not be determined whether the FTT had undertaken the required three-stage process and it had failed to give reasons. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the claimant company, Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd, for summary judgment in a case concerning the alleged breach of the claimant's trade mark in the use of the name of its car by the defendants' Formula One team. Although the evidence came nowhere near suggesting that the claimant had consented to the defendants using the name, issues concerning art 9.1 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark would have to be determined at trial. 

Company – Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal against findings that the appellants had dishonestly assisted A, the 100% owner and sole director of the respondent company, to breach his duties to that company under s 175 of the Companies Act 2006, and had dishonestly assisted A in misapplying £1.25m of the company's money. It dismissed the appeal, save that the judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable to compensate the company for a particular sum of £500,000, as part of the misapplication claim, would be reversed. 

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.