Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant finance company had purchased the debts of a company, which went into administration and subsequently into liquidation. The claimant brought proceedings, seeking to recover a sum from the defendant directors of the company, under deeds of indemnity. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that, on the true construction of the deeds of indemnity, the defendants' liability in each case was primary, not secondary and they had no real prospect of success in any of their defences. 

Practice – Civil litigation. In the course of private law family proceedings, the local authority intervened and issued care proceedings in relation to the two children. A case management hearing was held, at which the judge made critical comments of the mother and maternal grandmother and expressed doubt as to the veracity of their evidence. Following the fact finding hearing, the judge held that the mother's allegations were untrue and determined that the threshold criteria had been met. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, commenting on the role of the judge in such proceedings, allowed the mother's appeal on the ground that the judge had displayed apparent judicial bias. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient executed a lasting power of attorney in favour of her son. The local authority sought to revoke the LPA. The son objected. The Court of Protection allowed the authority's application and also gave permission to appoint a panel under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

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. 

European Union – Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arts 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) 295/91) had to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'arrival time', which was used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight had been subject, referred to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft was opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers were permitted to leave the aircraft. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to allow the respondent's appeal against the rejection of his application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to reinstate his indefinite leave to remain (ILR) which had been revoked following the issue of a deportation order pursuant to s 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The Supreme Court decided that on the correct construction of s 5(2) of that Act, the respondent remained liable to deportation, even though it could not at present be carried out: although his position in the United Kingdom had to be regularised, that did not entail recognition of ILR. 

Mental health – Patient. The applicant NHS Foundation Trust sought declarations, including that it was not in the respondent's best interests to be subjected to further compulsory detention and treatment of her anorexia nervosa, and that it was in her best interests and would be lawful for her treating clinicians not to provide her with nutrition and hydration with which she did not comply. Having fully reviewed the circumstances of the case, including the unanimous medical evidence that the declarations were in the respondent's best interests, the Court of Protection held that treatment of the respondent's anorexia should not be compelled. 

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. 

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the National Iranian Tanker Company for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in that the applicant had been listed in Annex II Decision 2010/413; and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as that regulation concerned that company.