Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Enforcement of planning control. The defendants were trustees of a charitable religious trust. They had entered into undertakings pursuant to s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of a site that they owned in east London. When the defendants breached those undertakings, the local planning authority applied to the court for a mandatory final injunction. The injunction was granted and the defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct to grant the injunction where there had been a substantial breach of the undertakings and in circumstances where the enforcement of contractual planning obligations and planning appeals (which the defendants had lodged) were separate processes. However, the judge had erred in not considering whether to suspend the operation of the injunction. 

European Union – Data protection. A university sought to make a book available in its library via electronic reading points. The owner of the user rights to the book, Ulmer, sought to prevent the book from being made available in that way. In the course of proceedings, the German Federal Court of Justice referred three preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court rulings on the interpretation of art 5(3)(n) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of proceedings between Mr U and the Stadt Karlsruhe concerning the latter's refusal to alter the form in which Mr U's birth name appeared in his German passport. The Court answered a number of questions relating to the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) 2252/2004 (on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents). 

Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved. 

Patent – Infringement. The defendant company, Lilly, produced a cancer treatment marketed under the name Alimta. The claimant companies sought to produce a generic product and obtain regulatory approval for it by reference to Alimta. Lilly contended that doing so would infringe its patent. The Patents Court considered the issue with regard to the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain, and held that the claimant companies were entitled to a declaration of non-infringement concerning all of the jurisdictions in question. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The child S, died in hospital. Post mortem investigations found that she was suffering from a number of injuries usually associated with non-accidental trauma, such as bone fractures, a scalp injury and intra-cranial bleeding. In addition, S, suffered from a number of conditions, all linked to a unique combination of genetic abnormalities. Following a fact finding hearing, the Family Division held that the local authority had not proven on a balance of probabilities that S's injuries had been inflicted non-accidentally. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority sought a draconian order that in the inherent jurisdiction of the court it be permitted not to disclose to the mother of a new-born child the care plan to remove her unborn child at birth. The Family Division held that due to the risk that the mother presented to herself and the baby, there was a very real risk of physical harm to the child if she were to learn of the local authority's plan of removal at birth and in those unusual circumstances the local authority's application would be allowed. 

The Supreme Court considered issues surrounding 'linguistic analysis reports' provided by a commercial organisation (Sprakab) in asylum appeals. It examined the appropriateness of guidance given in RB (Linguistic evidence – Sprakab) ([2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)) (RB), particularly with respect to the anonymity of Sprakab's individual analysts and linguists. With regard to the particular respondents, the reports' comments on their knowledge of country and culture had been inadequately supported by the authors' expertise. Further, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had treated RB as binding and had failed to give critical analysis to the particular reports relied on. 

Shipping – Cargo. The Commercial Court determined preliminary issues concerning a claim by the claimant owner of a vessel to enforce the terms of a letter of undertaking, which had been provided by defendant time charterer of the vessel to the owners by way of security for the potential liability of cargo interests in general average. 

Passing off – Descriptive name. The claimant made and sold hair oil under the name 'Moroccanoil' and the defendant sold hair oil, 'Miracle Oil'. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for passing off. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the evidence did not lead to the conclusion that members of the public were likely to assume either that Miracle Oil and Moroccanoil were the same thing, that they came from the same manufacture or were otherwise linked in trade. Accordingly, the claimant had failed to establish passing off because the evidence had not supported any likelihood of a misrepresentation by the defendant.