Latest Cases

Feeds

Moallem Insurance Co v European Council

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the action brought by Moallem Insurance Co for: (i) annulment of the European Council which had listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); (ii) annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010) in so far as it had listed the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation 267/2012; and (iii) a declaration that art 12 of Decision 2010/413 and art 35 of Regulation 267/2012 were inapplicable to it. 

*Re LW

Family proceedings – Costs. Following a decision of the Family Division to make an order in its' inherent jurisdiction that the local authority were permitted not to disclose the care plan for the unborn child to the mother, namely removal into care at birth and three hearings regarding the capacity of the mother in the Court of Protection, the issue of costs arose. The Court of Protection made an appropriate order on the basis of the evidence before it. 

Jamaican Redevelopment Foundation Inc v Real Estate Board

Mortgage – Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss 26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s 31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s 26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged. 

*Laboratoires Polive v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Laboratoires Polive for annulment of 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 Arbora & Ausoni, SLU, and Laboratoires Polive concerning the application by Laboratoires Polive for registration of the word sign 'DODIE' as a Community trade mark. 

Elliott v Tinkler and another

Contempt of court – Committal. The judge granted the claimant permission to bring committal proceedings against the defendants for contempt allegations, concerning false statements. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to conclude that there had been a strong prima facie case on the evidence, demonstrating that the defendants had knowingly made false statements. Further, he had failed to consider the history of the proceedings between the parties and had been wrong to conclude that it had been in the public interest that such allegations should proceed to a full committal hearing. 

Dogan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

European Union – Freedom of movement. The European Court of Justice Union ruled that art 41(1) of the Additional Protocol concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 and annexed to the Association Agreement had to be interpreted as meaning that the 'standstill' clause set out in that provision precluded a measure of national law, introduced after the entry into force of that additional protocol in the member state concerned, which imposed on spouses of Turkish nationals residing in that member state, who wished to enter the territory of that state for the purposes of family reunification, the condition that they demonstrate beforehand that they had acquired basic knowledge of the official language of that member state. 

AB v Home Office

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claims that the employer was liable for disability discrimination by proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and an internal appeal, but found that all other complaints of disability discrimination were not well-founded. The employee's request for a review was refused. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the refusal of a review, held that the tribunal judge had not committed any error of law in approaching the review. 

*R (on the applicaton of Buer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant was a Turkish worker who had been employed in the United Kingdom for four years before being refused indefinite leave to remain based on art 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 made pursuant to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement. He was refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision to grant him a further three years' leave. He was granted permission to appeal in respect of the 'standstill clause' at art 13 of the Decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal as it was clear under the caselaw from the Court of Justice of the European Union that arts 6(1) and 13 of the Decision were directed at different situations and his rights were covered by art 6(1) as applied by the Secretary of State. 

Strack v European Commission

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered the appeal brought by Mr Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court had not granted in full Mr Strack's form of order requesting annulment of several decisions of the European Commission relating to his applications for access to various documents based on Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents). 

Al-Tabbaa v European Council

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Mr Al-Tabbaa, a Syrian businessman, for annulment of acts by the European Council containing restrictive measures against Syria which concerned the applicant, namely, initially, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP (implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 410/2012 (implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria). 

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