Latest Cases

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 – 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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-trial judgment relief. The Chancery Division, Financial List, granted Barclays Bank plc summary judgment in respect of one but not the other of its claims alleging breach by the issuers of notes of their obligations, which, it contended was an event of default entitling it to accelerate payment of the notes. There was no prospect of the relevant defendants defending the claim in respect of notes issues in September 2007. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Criminal procedure – Sheriff's charge – Theft – Mens rea. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of the theft of a substantial amount of stock from the company of which he was the managing director, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff had failed to give adequate directions on the mens rea of theft and had failed to direct the jury appropriately not to speculate. 

Contract – Construction. The Chancery Division, Companies Court dismissed the employer's application for an injunction to restrain the contractor from presenting a winding up petition on the basis that the contractor had followed the procedure set out in the contract and there was no doubt concerning the liability of the employer to make the interim payments claimed in applications. 

Immigration – Leave to enter as child of refugee – Validity of application. Court of Session: Granting the prayer of a judicial review petition brought by the adopted daughters of a refugee, who applied for entry clearance to join him in the UK and whose application, presented as 'applications for family reunion in terms of para 352D of the Immigration Rules', was rejected without its merits being considered, an Entry Clearance Officer concluding it was not properly made under para 352D, the court held that the petitioner's application for leave to enter was 'made under' para 352D of the Immigration Rules and therefore it was fee exempt and it ought to have been considered on its merits.