Latest Cases

Practice – Hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the circumstances in which the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) could lawfully adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives were excluded from the hearing or part of it when it was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner. It held that the features most comprehensively spelt out in British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Information Commissioner and another ([2011] UKFTT EA_2010_0064 (GRC)) fully justified the approach taken in the present case, in which the maximum candour possible had been achieved. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The General Court of the European Union upheld the action by Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Cezar) for annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) concerning invalidity proceedings between Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. and Cezar relating to the application by Cezar for registration of a Community design intended to be applied to 'skirting boards'. 

Medicine – Product licence. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on the basis that, when conducting a re-inspection, the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) was knowingly gathering evidence in the context and for the purpose of infringement proceedings which had been brought against it under Commission Regulation (EC) 658/2007. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not declare that the MHRA's response to the European Medicines Agency's requests under art 8(3) of the Regulation had been unlawful or rule substantially rule on the contention that the material provided contained errors. Further, the MHRA's conduct had not been procedurally improper and unlawful in failing to advise the claimant of the potential use of the information. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant agreed to sell to the defendants a freehold property. The issue arose of whether the defendants were liable to pay to the claimant the VAT charge on that transaction. A summary judgment application by the claimant was allowed. An appeal by the defendants was allowed. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it could be said that the parties intended that nothing was or could become payable by the defendants over and above the specified purchase price of £130,000. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for her in purchasing a property. The solicitors did not advise her about restrictive covenants that affected the property. She carried out works in breach of the covenants and the neighbour with the benefit of the covenants complained. The claimant instructed the defendants to act for her. They did not, for some time, advise her to stop all works on the property but, when they did, she continued the works and the neighbour took out an injunction. The Recorder found the defendant had failed to make clear that the works had to stop and that, had the claimant known of the covenants, she would not have gone ahead with the purchase. Damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Recorder had erred in finding that the bringing of the injunction proceedings had been caused by the defendant's negligence, but that his conclusion that the claimant would not have gone ahead with the purchase had been correct. The appeal against the calculation of damages was successful in part. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility/sufficiency of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: In appeals against conviction by three bus drivers who were found guilty of forming a fraudulent scheme to defraud Transport Scotland by scanning lost or stolen concessionary travel cards into electronic ticket machines, the court held that the sheriff was entitled to admit evidence of the appellants' interviews with employees of Transport Scotland, was correct in repelling their submissions of no case to answer and was entitled to convict them, but that the findings-in-fact were not sufficient to support convictions for the period 5 February 2010 to 23 November 2010, so the convictions should be restricted to the date '23 November 2010'. 

Sentencing – Human rights – Order for lifelong restriction – Risk assessment report High Court of Justiciary: In a case in which a High Court judge referred an issue relating to the preparation of a risk assessment report where the court was considering making an order for lifelong restriction on a convicted person to a bench of three judges, the court held that the questions in the reference, namely whether s 210 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 was incompatible with the provisions of arts 6(1) or 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights in so far as the risk assessor might, 'take into account any allegation that the person has engaged in criminal behaviour (whether or not that behaviour resulted in prosecution and acquittal)', fell to be answered in the negative. 

Education – Higher education. The claimant, who had discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, was ineligible for a student loan as a result of her immigration status. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant Secretary of State's appeal, found that the defendant Secretary of State had adopted a lawful bright line rule in formulating the 'basic category' of eligible students given in para 2 of pt 2 of Sch 1 to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The parties were both companies which, among other things, provided vehicle rental services. The proceedings concerned alleged infringement by the defendants of the claimant's trade mark. In the course of proceedings, the claimant made an application seeking to adduce survey evidence. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate for the survey evidence to be adduced. 

Children and young persons – Parental orders. Following an application by the applicants, surrogate parents of the child, X, for a parental order, made outside of the time limit. The Family Division held that s 54(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, did not have the effect of preventing the court from making an order merely because the application had been made after the expiration of the six month time period.