Latest Cases

Feeds

*Wobben Properties GmbH v Siemens Public Ltd Company and others

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought proceedings against various defendants, including Siemens Public Ltd Company, alleging infringement a patent concerning a method of operating a pitch-controlled wind turbine. The claimant applied for an order that Siemens provide it with, among other things, information as to its customers within the jurisdiction of the court. The Patents Court held that the balance of justice was in favour of making a Norwich Pharmacal order for disclosure. 

*Argo Group International Holdings Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks & Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks & Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Arisa Assurances SA and Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Argo) relating to the application by Argo's predecessor for registration of a figurative sign 'ARIS' as a Community trade mark. 

Kemp v Court of 1st Instance No.4 of Orihuela, Alicante, Spain

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant judicial authority's appeal against the judge's discharge of the respondent's extradition to Spain to face trial for playing a leading role in a conspiracy to smuggle 800kg of cannabis to the United Kingdom, as the judge's conclusion on proportionality could not stand. However, it dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, as he had produced no evidence at all of reasonable grounds to believe that the sole reason for the failure to charge or to try him had been his absence from Spain. 

*Terminal Contenitori Porto Di Genova Spa v China Shipping Container Lines Ltd

Shipping – Collision. In June 2011, during high winds at the port of Genoa, the defendant owners' ship struck a crane belonging to the claimant terminal. The claimant brought proceedings for negligence. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the terminal was entitled to judgment against the owners. The owners' case on contributory negligence would be dismissed. 

*Diag Human Se v Czech Republic

Arbitration – Award. Following a dispute between the parties, the claimant company, Diag, succeeded against the defendant Czech Republic in an arbitration. It sought to enforce the arbitration award in a number of countries, including Austria. The Supreme Court of Austria held that the award had not yet become binding on the parties. Diag, sought to enforce the award in the English court. The court held that the Supreme Court of Austria's decision gave rise to an issue estoppel that would prevent Diag from enforcing the judgment in the English court. 

*Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In earlier proceedings, the claimant Russian shipping companies had alleged that the various defendants had been dishonestly involved in schemes to enrich a Russian businessman. The claimants had obtained freezing orders against the defendants and gave undertakings (the undertakings) to compensate the defendants in the event that the court found them to have suffered loss consequent upon the orders. Some, but not all of the claims had succeeded. Some of the defendants to the orders (the applicants in the present proceedings) alleged that they suffered loss consequent upon those orders and that the orders had been improperly made due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of disclosure and had caused them loss. They applied for directions for an assessment of compensation for loss suffered to be paid, under the undertakings. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the impropriety of the claimants who had obtained the freezing orders had been such that it would be wrong not to enforce the undertakings. The defendants had adduced sufficient evidence that the orders had caused them loss to justify an inquiry as to damages. 

*Tifosi Optics Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

*Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time limit)

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. 

Attorney General's Reference (No 34/2014); R v Jenkin

Sentence – Minimum period of imprisonment. The Attorney General brought a reference concerning the offender's sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum term of six years, less time spent on remand, for the manslaughter of his mother and sister. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that, if the court chose to work with the currency of minimum terms, it did not need to have regard to early release provisions. As the ultimate sentence imposed by the judge had been unduly lenient, a minimum term to 13 years and four months would be substituted. 

Igbinake v Axis Security Ltd

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal had dismissed the employee's claim that the employer, in refusing the employee time off to attend a church harvest, had directly discriminated against the employee on the grounds of his religion and belief. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that although the tribunal might well have had in mind the answers to the central issues, it had insufficiently expressed its findings on them in order for an appellate court to be confident that it had done so. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for consideration. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

From Preston to Parliament

Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases