Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed judicial review proceedings concerning three minors and an adult with a serious mental illness presently in 'the jungle' near Calais, seeking admission to the United Kingdom where their siblings had been recognised as refugees. The Secretary of State's refusal of admission based on European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 604/2013 would interfere disproportionately with the claimants' right to respect for family life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Kicktipp GmbH (Kicktipp) against the 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 Società Italiana Calzature Srl and Kicktipp, regarding the application by the latter for registration of a word sign 'kicktipp' as a Community trade mark. 

Local authority – Residential care home. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant NHS local health boards in Wales' appeal against the decision that their determination of a flat-rate payment to care homes, reflecting the estimated cost of the nursing element of the care required by each resident, but not the social care element, was unlawful. The distinction between nursing and social care services in s 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 was effectively unrecognised in the judge's reasoning. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), allowing the employee's appeal, held that an employment tribunal (the tribunal) had erred on a number of points relating to claims brought by the employee for, among other things, harassment. The tribunal had dismissed the employee's claim for harassment, as the employee did not personally share the protected characteristics referred to. The EAT held that that was not necessary for a claim of harassment to succeed. The EAT further held, in dismissing the employer's cross-appeal, that knowledge of the employee's disability was not a pre-requisite for the employee bringing a claim of disability discrimination. The case was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration on the harassment point. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a costs order following determination of quantum in a negligence claim where liability had been compromised. The judge had erred in having come to a decision that had been outside the bounds of reasonable decision making which was, moreover, in large part based upon an error of principle in having construed the defendant's offer to settle under CPR Pt 36 as having been an offer capable of acceptance by the claimants when, in the circumstances, it had not been. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Privy Council allowed an appeal arising out foreign insolvency proceedings concerning a company owned by Bernard Madoff. The trustee in bankruptcy of the company had sought to enforce a default judgment obtained in New York against the appellant company in Gibraltar, where it held substantial assets. The trustee's application for summary judgment was allowed in part by the Court of Appeal of Gibraltar, which ruled that the trustee's claim that the appellant had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the state of New York had a reasonable prospect of success. The Privy Council, allowing the appellant's appeal, held that, on the facts, there was no basis for the assertion that there was a contractual term that the appellant had submitted to the New York jurisdiction. It held that an agreement to submit to a jurisdiction of a foreign court did not have to be contractual in nature and might be implied as a matter of fact, or by law. In any event, even if a jurisdiction agreement was to be implied, it would not apply to the present avoidance proceedings. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union upheld the plea by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Meica), alleging infringement of art 8(3) of Regulation (EC) 216/96 in the context of opposition proceedings between Meica and Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA, regarding the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'STICK MiniMINI Beretta' as a Community trade mark. Consequently, the General Court partially annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), in so far as it had rejected Meica's submissions concerning the services in Class 43 of the Nice Agreement. 

Criminal law – Child sex offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that a 3-year community order, with a supervision requirement for 2 years and a rehabilitation activity requirement for 30 days, for the offence of rape of a child under 13, contrary to s 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, had been unduly lenient. The recorder had been wrong to have deemed the case as exceptional in order to depart from the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guidelines: Sexual Offences. The sentence would be quashed and substituted for a term of 42 months' detention in custody. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in allowing the appellants appeal held, in a case of determining whether the court had jurisdiction based on habitual residence of a child, that the modern concept of a child's habitual residence operated in the expectation that when a child had a new habitual residence, he lost his old one. Only a degree of integration was required in the new state. It was highly unlikely that a child would be left in limbo without a habitual residence. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's applications for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the construction of 12 dwellings and its approval of the discharge of five conditions of that planning permission. There had been no misinterpretation of the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, members of the defendant's committee had not been misled and there had not been any misdirection or error in the approval of the details under three conditions.