Latest Cases

Feeds

OOO Abbott v Design & Display Ltd

Patent – Infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against the quantification of an account of profits following an earlier finding that the defendant had infringed the claimants' patent for a snap-in insert that attached to shop display panels. The judge had erred in his approach to apportionment of the overall profit made by the defendant and had further erred in his assessment of the deduction of general overheads. 

Ochiemhen, petitioner

Immigration – Judicial review – Application for permission. Court of Session: In one of the first applications for permission to proceed with a petition for judicial review under the new Rules in Chapter 58 of the Rules of the Court of Session, in which a Nigerian citizen challenged the Home Secretary's decision to curtail his leave to remain for breach of one of its conditions, the court made observations on the test for permission and held that the petitioner had demonstrated a case with a real prospect of success and granted permission. 

Marsdens Caterers of Sheffield v Revenue and Customs Commisisoners

Value added tax – Penalty. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Marsdens Caterers of Sheffield (Marsdens) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) by which the FTT had dismissed Marsdens challenge to a default surcharge imposed on it by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners in respect of late payment of VAT for the relevant period. 

Lord Chancellor v Charles Ete and Co and others

Legal aid – Legal fees. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to recover payment on account made to the defendant solicitors firm in accordance with Legal Services Commission v Loomba and s 3(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. 

R v Drinkwater

Criminal evidence – Hearsay. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had not erred in having exercised her discretion, pursuant to s 126 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to exclude the hearsay confession of a deceased man. In the circumstances, the case for exclusion had been overwhelming. The defendant's convictions for two counts of rape, two counts of robbery and one count of indecent assault, were, accordingly, safe. 

A and others v B and others

Variation of trusts – Power of appointment. The Chancery Division gave its reasons for allowing an application to vary three trusts. The object of the variation was to eliminate the need for the involvement of non-parties to the proceedings in discussions about the future of the trust. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was perfectly proper for the trustees to effect the partial releases. No fraud on a power was involved. 

M and another v Islington London Borough

Housing – Local authority. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant severely autistic children's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's failure to afford them a transfer to other accommodation was unlawful, alleging that their present accommodation was unsafe for them. There was no doubt that the system in operation to deal with accommodation to meet needs complied with the indirect application of s 27 of the Children Act 1989 and its application to each claimant was lawful. 

*UK Insurance Ltd v Holden and another

Insurance – Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles. The Mercantile Court ruled that the claimant insurer of the first defendant's car, which had caught fire at his place of employment while being repaired, causing damage to the employer's premises and the adjoining premises, was entitled to a declaration that the first defendant's car insurance policy, did not cover a claim (the claim) by the employer's insurer against the first defendant for an indemnity in respect of the sums it had paid out as a result of damage caused by the fire. It was not a 'normal function' of a car to undergo repair. The repair that had been undertaken to the car did not amount to 'using' the car, within the meaning of the car insurance policy. Accordingly, the policy did not respond to the claim. 

The Coca-Cola Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning proceedings by Coca-Cola for the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a contour bottle without fluting. 

Yemgas Fzco and others v Superior Pescadores SA Panama

Shipping – Bill of lading. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that any case, in which a bill of lading was issued in 2008 incorporating the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of shipment and in which the country of shipment had (as in the present case) enacted the Hague-Visby Rules, should be regarded as a case which was subject to the Hague-Visby Rules, rather than the (old) Hague Rules. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Global gatherings

The Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases