Latest Cases

Building contract – Contractor. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant company's application for declaratory relief in a dispute concerning the payment obligations under a contract and an escrow agreement. The court held that the first defendant had not made a valid interim application within the meaning of the contract, and thus no default event had occurred within the meaning of the escrow agreement. 

Contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court construed a settlement agreement made between the claimant mobile network operator EE Ltd, formerly known as T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and the defendant mobile virtual network operator, Mundio Mobile Ltd (MML). Among other things, it held that a new marketing support fund only became available to MML once it had complied with its 'Minimum Year to Date Bundle Commitment' up to the end of the previous calendar month. 

Landlord and tenant – Assignment of lease. The Chancery Division held that a tenant was precluded under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 from assigning the tenancy to its guarantor and any agreement which sought to give effect to such an arrangement was void by reason of s 25(1) of the Act, as it frustrated the purpose of the Act. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling considering the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 in the context of proceedings between Portmeirion Group UK Ltd and the United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Commissioners concerning the refusal by those authorities to grant Portmeirion's request for repayment of the anti-dumping duties paid by that company in respect of imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China. The Court held that consideration of the question referred had disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of that regulation. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the discharge of a committal order which had resulted in the defendant's early release from prison. In doing so, the court gave guidance to the effect that where the court was minded to act of its own initiative, it should ordinarily, so far as practicable, give notice of its intention to the person or body at whose instance the warrant of committal had been issued. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Naazneen Investments Ltd (NIL) to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union inNaazneen Investments v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs): Case T‑250/13, by which the General Court had dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM relating to revocation proceedings between Energy Brands Inc. and NIL concerning the assignment to the latter of registration of the word mark 'SMART WATER'. 

Occupier's liability – Duty of care. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claim for personal injury suffered when a ramp from a horse box fell on him whilst parked at horse show grounds owned and operated by the first defendant with the second defendant operating as an independent contractor. The court found that although the defendants had owed the claimant a duty of care at common law and under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 on the facts the horse box had not been causing an obstruction and therefore the claim had to fail. 

Sentence – Drug offence. On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, following concessions made by the prosecution in respect of the level of the defendant's involvement, that it could no longer rely on some of the assertions which had been put forward at the time of sentencing, a term of 14-years-and-8-months' imprisonment for conspiracy to supply cocaine would be reduced to one of 10 years' imprisonment. 

Copyright – Database. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held that the defendant software company, Hubcreate Ltd, had not infringed the claimant, Ultrasoft Technologies Ltd's copyrights or database rights beyond infringements already admitted because none of Hubcreate's customers, other than the one for which infringement had already been admitted, had had access to Ultrasoft Ltd's software. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The Commercial Court allowed the second defendant company's application to set aside a judgement in default in proceedings relating to an alleged fraud carried out by the defendants concerning property purchased by the claimant. The second defendant had a real prospect of defending the claim. Weighing up the relevant factors, the balance fell strongly in favour of setting aside the default judgment.