Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on two actions brought by Harrys Pubar AB (HP) and Harry's New York Bar SA (HNYB) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between HP and HNYB concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word mark 'HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (ICWL) against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd, and ICWL, regarding the application by the latter for registration of the word mark 'INFINITY' as a Community trade mark. 

Minor – Abduction. The Family Division dismissed the mother's application to strike out the father's application under the Hague Convention for the return of his children to Spain from England. It was generally inappropriate for the courts to entertain an application to strike out a summary application under the Convention, save in the exceptional circumstances which were not present in the instant case. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant company's application for an order that the first defendant be removed as arbitrator from an ongoing arbitration between the claimant and the second defendant, pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996, where, on the facts, an allegation of apparent bias had been made out. 

Claim form – Service. The Chancery Division allowed the first defendant's application to set aside an order that had granted the claimant South African solicitors' firm an extension of time to serve its claim form. The court held that the claimant's efforts at service of the claim form had been wholly inadequate, and it had not come close to persuading the court that it ought to exercise its jurisdiction an extend time for service. There was no good reason to authorise service by an alternative method or at an alternative place, and no circumstances that would make it appropriate to dispense with service of the claim form. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court allowed an application to enforce an adjudicator's decision in circumstances where the dispute between the parties had crystallised by the time the notice of adjudication was issued and the adjudicator had not acted in breach of natural justice in having sought to obtain, and having obtained, further information from the claimant which had not been provided previously. It was wrong in principle to suggest that a dispute had not arisen until every last particular of every last element of the claim had been provided. Further, it was not unfair if an adjudicator was given information during the adjudication which had not previously been available (whether it had been previously requested or not). 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the lawfulness of his immigration detention and/or his treatment while in detention. In particular, his detention had not been unlawful due to a breach of the Secretary of State's policy on detaining the mentally ill or the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983). 

Education – Pupil. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decisions to transfer him to off-site educational provision and the failure to keep that decision under review. The school had not served the mandatory notice required under reg 3 of the Education (Educational Provision for Improving Behaviour) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/1156 and had failed to conduct mandatory reviews. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made a parental order under s 54 Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 2008 despite the fact that the surrogacy relating to that order had concerned different parties to the original agreement which had been made with the surrogate in 2012. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that the meaning of a consent family remedy order meant that tax on a French property was not to come out of the wife's share of the proceeds.