Latest Cases

Court of Appeal – Leave to appeal. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners had issued proceedings regarding a missing trader intra-community fraud. Following a trial of sample claims, some of the allegations were found to be proved and the defendants were ordered to pay the sums lost in revenue. The defendants sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ordered that conditions regarding payment into court of the judgment sum be attached to the application for permission to appeal and ordered a stay of the execution of the judgment between the payment into court of the judgment sum and determination of the appeal. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient suffered a stroke which left him incapacitated and unable to manage his own affairs. There were two applicants to the court of protection who sought to manage his affairs. The Court of Protection chose the candidate proposed by a support network of friends and neighbours, who represented the status quo in terms of being the persons in whom the patient had placed trust and confidence immediately before he became incapacitated. 

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. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant in-house solicitor for a newspaper appealed against the finding of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) that he was guilty of failing to act with integrity and knowingly allowing the judge to be misled in the conduct of litigation. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge had been misled. The SDT, having disavowed making any finding of dishonesty, could not properly proceed to make a finding that the appellant had knowingly allowed the judge to be misled. However, it was inevitable that the SDT would have found him guilty on the basis that he had recklessly allowed the judge to be misled. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found error in the FTT's decisions and placed considerable weight on the High Court's decision in finding the claimant an adult. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not been bound by the High Court's decision, but had been entitled to attach considerable weight to it. However, the UT had not regarded itself as bound by the High Court's decision and had not fundamentally erred. 

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 – Social security. The proceedings concerned a decision withdrawing the applicant's entitlement to family benefits in France, where she lived with her family, on the ground that the Czech Republic, of which she was a national and where she had her registered address, did not have competence to grant her such benefits. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered questions referred to it by the national court concerning the interpretation of art 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, as amended, and of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EEC) 883/2004, as amended. 

European Union – Data protection. A university sought to make a book available in its library via electronic reading points. The owner of the user rights to the book, Ulmer, sought to prevent the book from being made available in that way. In the course of proceedings, the German Federal Court of Justice referred three preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court rulings on the interpretation of art 5(3)(n) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. 

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. 

Armed forces – Service complaints. The first defendant Army Board of the Defence Council (the panel) rejected the claimant's service complaint, contending that his career had been mismanaged. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the panel had been entitled to take the view that an oral hearing had not been necessary to fairly decide the matter. Further, the 34-month delay in the determination of the complaint had not been unlawful under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or at common law.