Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (LR) 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 Robert McBride Ltd and LR concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative mark 'LR nova pure' as a Community trade mark. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division in a mesothelioma case brought on the deceased's behalf by his wife held that the deceased had not been contributory negligent and made an award of £85,000 in respect of an asbestos related disease in the upper half of the most severe category. 

Rates – Charitable or other organisation. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated against the judge's decision, dismissing its application for liability orders for non-domestic rates against the respondent charity. The judge had not been entitled to take into account as a factor, when having assessed whether the premises had been wholly or mainly used for a charitable purpose, the fact that the premises had not been used for any other purpose. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the condition imposed by the defendant local planning authority on granting planning permission to the interested party for a new retail-led development. The condition required a legally binding commitment, it was enforceable and not too vague, it would achieve its purpose and material considerations had not been ignored. 

Negligence – Causation. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant hospital board's appeal, held that, as a matter of principle, successive events were capable of each making a material contribution to the subsequent outcome. It was not persuaded by the appellant's argument that Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw ([1956] 1 All ER 615) was distinguishable because, in that case, the inhalation from two sources had been simultaneous, whereas, in the present case, the sepsis attributable to the appellant's negligence had developed after sepsis had already begun to develop. 

Negligence – Medical negligence. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's case for clinical negligence against the defendant NHS Trust following an operation on the claimant preformed by a surgeon employed by the Trust. The court held that the claimant had failed to prove that the defendant's servants or agents had acted in breach of their duty to her. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 13A(1)(g) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388. The request had been made in proceedings between Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL and État belge concerning the refusal to allow that company to deduct input VAT in the context of building work which it had carried out for the purpose of operating a serviced residence. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework's appeal in respect of the interpretation of para 21(4) of Sch 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and ruled on the proper interpretation of that provision. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove her and her three children. However, it declared that the entire period of her detention had been unlawful, as it had breached the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. Accordingly, claimant was entitled to nominal damages for the first 72 hours of her detention, but compensatory damages for the extent to which her detention had exceeded 72 hours. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted to the effect that its scope included an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action had not been instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case.