Latest Cases

Contract – Consumer contract. The proceedings involved a contract made in the claimant's home that the claimant had purported to cancel. The defendant charged him a cancellation fee and refused to refund him a deposit. In finding for the claimant, the Supreme Court held that a failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel did not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1816. 

Magistrates – Warrant. The claimants sought judicial review of the execution of warrants at their homes and business premises by the defendant Environment Agency. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, taking the provisions of s 108(6) of and Sch 18 to the Environment Act 1995 together, seven days' notice was not required to be given in the cases set out in s 108(6)(b) of the Act. Further, the warrant had extended to a bungalow on one property and the defendant's officers had not gone beyond their statutory powers. 

Extradition – Discharge of fugitive. The Divisional Court, in allowing an appeal against a discharge of a European Arrest Warrant, held that, in the circumstances, the respondent had not demonstrated that extradition to Slovakia would be disproportionate under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor would it breach his rights under art 3 of the Convention. 

Mortgage – Real property. The defendant valued a commercial property for the claimant which was security for a loan. The tenant of the property became insolvent and the property was in the process of being sold for a price far below the valuation. The claimant brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant company which went into liquidation in 2012. It sought judgment for €58,400,000, being the difference between the valuation of the property at €135m and what the claimant contended was the true market value at €76.6m. The Commercial Court concluded that the true value of the property as at December 2005 was €103m and that the defendant had therefore 'negligently' overvalued the property by €32m. 

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 – 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). 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2 and 3 of Directive (EC) 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council (to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks). The request had been made in proceedings between Apple Inc (Apple) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, concerning the latter's rejection of an application by Apple for registration of a trade mark. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant, a 16-year-old young woman, had been living with a maternal aunt and uncle, and subsequently went to stay with a paternal aunt. The defendant local authority concluded that the claimant was not a looked after child and, therefore, was not eligible for certain financial allowances. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence showed that the claimant was not a looked after child and that the authority had not sought to sidestep its duties. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Pursuant to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, a judge of the High Court could grant a 'leapfrog' certificate to enable the case to proceed directly to the Supreme Court. In the instant case of several hundred claims by Iraqi civilians seeking damages from the defendant Ministry of Defence for their allegedly unlawful detention and/or unlawful treatment by British armed, the Queen's Bench Division granted the application. 

Damages – Entitlement to damages. The claimants were the tenants of a restaurant. A fire occurred at the restaurant, which was caused by contractors working for the landlord, P. The claimants commenced proceedings against P, seeking a range of remedies including the award of exemplary damages. The Chancery Division held that the claimants were entitled to be placed in the position that they would have been in had the fire not occurred, namely in occupation of restaurant premises with a working kitchen. Exemplary damages were not awarded.