Latest Cases

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. 

Judicial review – Pilot's authorisation – Disciplinary/revocation procedure. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a River Forth pilot who was placed on a 12-month performance review following four marine incidents in 2012, and then given notice of intention to revoke his pilot's authorisation by the harbour authority following a fifth incident, the court preferred the respondents' construction of the Pilotage Code of Practice, held that on that construction the code had not been complied with, but concluded that such failures as there had been did not invalidate the decisions and procedure to date. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The court dismissed the father's application to discharge care orders in respect of two children, E and N, and granted a placement order in respect of N. Prior to the hearing, the judge had declined to order an addendum report from the psychologist. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that the refusal of a further report was well within the discretion of the judge and, further, it had not been demonstrated that the judge's conclusion as to the children's best interests had been wrong on the material available. 

Practice – Litigation friend. The claimants were a daughter who acted on her own behalf and as litigation friend for her father. She obtained summary judgment against her brother regarding family properties in which she claimed to have a beneficial interest. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the brother's appeal as the judge had not first addressed the question of the daughter's conflict of interest where the competing issues at trial had been whether she and her father both had beneficial interests in the properties or whether the properties were held beneficially for the father alone. Where there was such a clear conflict of interest, the judge should have addressed that question first and determined that the issues were to be tried. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Iranian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had addressed her task in a manner consistent with the required approach. She had been entitled to find that the claimant's credibility had not been fully restored by his further submissions. 

Proceeds of crime – Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The claimant National Crime Agency sought a civil recovery order, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, over eight properties, the proceeds of rental income, and English and Luxembourg bank accounts. The Queen's Bench Division held that, with the exception of one property, the assets were recoverable, as they had been acquired through unlawful conduct, namely, drug dealing, money laundering or VAT fraud. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar – Twelve-month rule. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant whose trial in July 2013 on a charge of assault was adjourned to the October 2013 sitting because of the complainer's absence from the country, and who appealed against a sheriff's decision on the last day of that sitting to grant the Crown's motion to adjourn the trial again 'due to pressure of business', the court held that that sheriff had correctly exercised his judgment that sufficient reason had been shown for an extension of the time bar, as there was no contention that when the case was allocated in July for trial at the October sitting it was anticipated that it would not take place, and it did not take place because of a combination of factors, including the unexpected overrunning of another trial. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a Decision Notice against the applicant director of a mortgage and insurance company stating that it had decided to: (a) withdraw his approval to perform controlled functions in relation to the company; and (b) make a prohibition order against him. The applicant contested the FCA's decision and referred the Decision Notice to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The tribunal dismissed the reference, deciding that although the applicant had not been deliberately dishonest, he had lacked integrity in his business dealings and his dealings with the FCA. 

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. 

Company – Compulsory winding up. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners issued without notice applications for the appointment of provisional liquidators in relation to the affairs of two companies. The Chancery Division, having set out the principles upon which to proceed in dealing with without notice applications for the appointment of provisional liquidators, granted the applications. It held that, in the circumstances, there was no real alternative but to appoint provisional liquidators.