Latest Cases

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'. 

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. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 562/2006, as amended, (establishing a community code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders) and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 810/2009 (establishing a community code on visas). The request had been made in the course of a dispute between Air Baltic and Valsts robežsardze concerning the imposition of a fine on Air Baltic for the administrative offence of transporting a person to Latvia without necessary travel documents. 

Landlord and tenant – Service charge. The Chancery Division held that a landlord was not entitled to charge the claimant tenant service charges which represented costs for refurbishment works, which it had incurred after the claimant had terminated the lease by operating a break clause. That was so, notwithstanding that the relevant works had been carried out within the original contractual period of the lease. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Following the claimant Russian national's divorce from a British citizen, the defendant Secretary of State refused her further leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on the fact that her former spouse had worked elsewhere in the European Union during their marriage. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had been Wednesbury unreasonable in failing to take into account that the claimant had been exercising rights as a family member under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for some of the period she had been in the UK. 

Contract – Termination. A Brazilian firm (Fibria) sought to cancel a contract with a South Korean company (the company), which was in administration. The contract was governed by English law. The company submitted that, on the true construction of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030, Fibria could not cancel the contract. The Companies Court held that, on the proper construction of the Regulations, it had no power to order a stay in relation to Fibria's entitlement to serve a termination notice under the contract, nor could it make an order restraining Fibria from serving such a notice. 

Contract – Penalty. The claimant company sought a remedy against the defendants for breaches by the defendants of their restrictive covenants following the sale of a business by the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the context of the non-compete covenants the defendants had been in partial breach of the non-compete covenant and the claimant was entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed. 

Employment – Remuneration. The claimant, M, was employed with the defendant, Mears, following a transfer to the defendant under the Transfer of Employment (Protection of Undertakings) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). The issue of remuneration was dealt with at meetings with the then Managing Director of Mears. A dispute arose over the terms of agreement. M claimed over £2m against Mears, which he contended was due to him under a profit sharing bonus agreement. Mears disputed the claim. The Queen's Bench made various findings on the issue of liability and the parties would need to consider the implications of the findings for the claims made and address the court further. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that her representations, relying upon art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, did not amount to a fresh claim for asylum. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had addressed herself to all of the relevant considerations and had formed a view which was not one which was irrational or untenable. Further, the claimant had not established a private life of sufficient strength to lead to the Secretary of State's decision being overturned. 

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.