Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by The Body Shop International plc (The Body Shop) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between The Body Shop and Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV concerning the application by the former for registration of the word sign 'SPA WISDOM' as a Community trade mark. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Philippine national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing to grant her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. There was no merit in her arguments relating to historic injustice and to her own pregnancy, nor was there merit in the issue of whether the applicant should be expected to make an application from her own country. 

European Union – Customs duties. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of r 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007. The request had been made in proceedings between VAD BVBA and its managing director and Belgium, concerning the tariff classification of combined video-audio systems and loudspeakers. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by the Council of the European Union by which the Council had sought to set aside a judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had annulled certain European Union decisions, regulations and implementing regulations concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as they had concerned Bank Mellat, following the placing of Bank Mellat's name by the Council on the lists of persons, entities and bodies to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied. 

Company – Member. The Chancery Division dismissed a petition brought by a minority shareholder and employee of a company, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006, alleging that he had been the victim of unfair conduct by the majority shareholders in the company after he had been dismissed and the compulsory transfer of his shares mechanism in the company's articles of association had been invoked. The relationship between the parties could not be described as a quasi-partnership. The present cases concerned an arm's length deal on agreed documentation; it was not a venture founded on the sort of considerations which were likely to give rise to the possibility of overriding equitable considerations under s 994 of the Act. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. Following the defendant's conviction of conspiracy to import cocaine, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, in significant respects, the judge's approach in calculating the recoverable amount had been seriously flawed in a way which resulted in an excessive confiscation order being made. On the facts, the confiscation order in the sum of approximately £3.6m would be quashed and substituted for the sum of £500,000. 

Police – Investigation of crime. On references by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, pursuant to s 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendants' convictions for murder and manslaughter had not been rendered unsafe. Amongst other things, the new evidence, which had not been available at the time of the defendants' trials, had not, in the circumstances, impacted upon the safety of the convictions. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) which had allowed the taxpayers' appeal against a determination that they were not entitled to a repayment of VAT as they should have known that their purchases were connected with fraud. The Upper Tribunal had erred in a number of respects, including have addressed the evidence in a compartmentalised fashion, and the earlier determination of the First-tier Tribunal, that the only reasonable explanation which the taxpayers could have drawn from their prior knowledge and the circumstances was that the relevant transactions were connected with a fraud by a previous buyer was reinstated. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division continued a freezing injunction against the first respondent, against whom judgment had been granted in favour of the applicants, and discharged ab initio the freezing injunction against his wife, the second respondent, in respect of whom no judgment had been granted. The eagerness with which the applicants had approached the seeking of freezing relief against the first respondent had misled them into an approach that targeted particular assets in a proprietary way, and thence to obtaining, wrongly, a wholesale freezing order against the second respondent. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Indian citizen's appeal against a decision by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refusing him permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a decision made by an Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) in Mumbai, on behalf of the respondent Secretary of State, refusing him a business visitor visa to the United Kingdom. Among other things, it considered how an ECO should deal with a second application based on different evidence to that furnished where an earlier application had been refused, under para 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, before making a decision under para 320(7B) of the Rules.