Latest Cases

Insolvency – Statutory demand. The Bankruptcy High Court allowed the applicants' application to set aside statutory demands made on them following the failure of a venture to develop land. The applicants submitted that their relationship with their bank had been such to suggest the existence of a joint venture, and that there was a possibility of a cross-claim against the valuer of the company that they had formed. The court held that the debts, or their enforceability, were disputed on substantial grounds and/or the applicants appeared to have a cross claim that was likely to equal or exceed the amount claimed in the demands. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Mederer GmbH (Mederer) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings B V and Mederer, regarding the achievement by the latter of international registration of a figurative mark 'Gummi Bear-Rings' in certain colours. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's case in negligence against the orthopaedic surgeon employed by the defendant NHS Trust as on the evidence, the claimant's grounds for establishing breach of duty and therefore liability had not been made out. 

Company – Winding up. The Chancery Division dismissed an application to restrain presentation of a winding up petition based upon a statutory demand which had been served by the respondent on the applicant company, alleging indebtedness under what was called a rating agreement. In the circumstances, there was no realistic chance of the applicant establishing anything remotely approaching a substantial dispute in relation to liability under the agreement. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tayto Group Ltd (Tayto) 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 MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'REAL HAND COOKED' as a Community trade mark. 

Town and country planning – Established use. The Planning Court dismissed the claimants' appeal against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing the second claimant's appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's failure to give notice within the prescribed period of its decision on her application for a certificate of lawful use. The alleged use of the premises had not been an existing use, but an historic use. 

Arbitration – Award. The Family Division following an application by the husband, held that an arbitration award be made an order of the court following the parties' family financial dispute resolution under the family law arbitration scheme. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of five years and ten months' imprisonment for aggravated burglary. After giving guidance on s 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, it held that, if the judge had wrongly found the appellant had deliberately absented himself from trial, he would have been obligated to have concluded that the appellant would be entitled to a retrial. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 24 of Directive (EC) 2004/38, and art 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010, should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which nationals of other member states who were in a situation such as that referred to in art 6(1) of that directive were excluded from entitlement to certain 'special non-contributory cash benefits' within the meaning of art 70(2) of Regulation 883/2004, which also constituted 'social assistance' within the meaning of art 24(2) of Directive 2004/38. 

Insolvency – Liquidator. The Chancery Division held, among other things, that the defendant liquidator was not liable to the claimant firm of solicitors (the firm) for its charges, basic costs and uplift or for interest on unpaid or late payment of disbursements in respect of work done, pursuant to a conditional fee agreement (CFA), in respect of the liquidation of a company. A letter sent to the Firm by the liquidator and its acceptance by the Firm's principal, had had the effect of importing into the conditional fee agreement that recovery of assets into the estate was a precondition to the firm rendering an invoice to the liquidator for work done by the Firm.