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. 

Solemn procedure – Adjournment of trial diet – Time bar – Twelve-month rule. High Court of Justiciary: Passing bills of advocation by four appellants complaining against a sheriff's decisions ex proprio motu adjourning a trial diet to a future assize and thereafter granting a motion for an extension of time, the court held that the decision ex proprio motu to adjourn the trial diet was flawed and in any event the sheriff ought to have exercised his discretion and refused the extension. 

Company – Director. The claimant company claimed for loss suffered when two client companies defaulted on their obligations to pay margin calls under open-ended contracts for difference (CfD) entered into between the claimant and those two companies. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's determination that the defendant had not been a director or shadow director of the claimant, nor had his conduct constituted a breach of s 190 of the Companies Act 2006. 

Company – Receiver. In earlier London arbitration proceedings, the claimant had been awarded around US$300m against the defendant foreign companies. The Commercial Court granted the claimant's application to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution over certain assets of the defendants where, on the facts, it was just and convenient to do so, in the exercise of the court's discretion. 

Child – Welfare. Following the removal of his brain tumour, the parents of A, a boy aged five, disputed the hospital's proposed further treatment. They, before removing him to Spain, proposed therapy generally unavailable in the United Kingdom and A's referral to a facility in Prague. On the local authority's application, the judge made A a ward of the court and ordered a further hearing. Following receipt of further information, the Family Division held that there was no reason to stand in the way of the parents' proposal. Both proposed courses were reasonable and it was the parents who bore the heavy responsibility of making a decision. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings for declaratory relief that the defendant Secretary of State had falsely imprisoned him and damages. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that a reasonable period of detention had not expired by the date upon which the claimant had actually been released. Further, there had not been any period during which it had been or ought to have been apparent to the Secretary of State that she would not be able to effect the claimant's deportation within a reasonable period. The Secretary of State's admitted periods of unlawful detention had been subsumed within an overall reasonable period. 

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. 

National Health Service – Health authority. From 2006 until 2008, the claimant's late mother had been a resident at a nursing home. The defendant was asked by the claimant to review the position of his mother prior to her death in respect of her eligibility for continuing healthcare throughout her residence at the home. The defendant refused to assess her position between May 2007 and her death in 2008, and the claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision not to review the May and September assessments was irrational and unreasonable. 

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. 

Police – Discipline. The claimant police officers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the refusal of their appeals against the continued imposition of the service confidence procedure (SCP) against them. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decisions had sufficient public law element. However, the circumstances which led to a decision to invoke the SCP required that the court not intervene in the absence of very exceptional circumstances and that threshold had not been met. There was no patent and unanswerable illogicality/irrationality/unfairness in the defendant's decisions.