Latest Cases

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom, to remove him from the UK and to give directions for his removal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in refusing permission, held that the claimant's grounds of challenge were unarguable. Further, the fact that the claimant could pursue an out of country appeal pointed unmistakeably to a refusal of permission and the duty of candour had required the provision of a witness statement from the claimant. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Privy Council dismissed an appeal against refusal of summary judgment on a claim seeking to enforce an option to purchase land. The terms that the appellant sought to be implied into the agreement were not needed to give business efficacy to the agreement, therefore, the respondents had a more than fanciful prospect of success in defending the claim. 

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. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employer had refused to pay the employees a day's wages in circumstances where they had attended an agreed pick-up point, but had refused to be driven to work on a road which was closed due to snow. The employment tribunal rejected the employees' claims that they had suffered a detriment in breach of their rights under s 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was concerned with matters of health and safety, and that they had suffered and unlawful deduction from wages. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employees' appeal in part, found that the tribunal had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. It rejected a further argument that the employees were entitled to be paid from 8am on the day in question on the basis that they had attended the pick-up point in accordance with instructions. The matter was remitted for a re-hearing. 

Company – Director. The Companies Court dismissed the claimant's appeal against an order disqualifying him from acting as a director of a company for 12 years. The order was not obtuse or conceptually incoherent as alleged by the claimant. Further, the registrar's judgment in relation to the length of disqualification was in accord with principle and authority. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claim concerned allegedly negligent advice given by the defendant company to the claimants in relation to a loan. In the course of proceedings, HMT admitted liability. Following the admissions, the Chancery Division made findings as to the various remaining aspects of the case. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Iraqi asylum seeker challenging a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court, inter alia, rejected contentions that the decision-maker had taken an irrelevant matter into account, had failed to consider that another immigration judge might depart from country guidance, had provided no proper analysis of the new material, and had failed to apply anxious scrutiny. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Administrative Court previously gave judgment on the claimant's application for a declaration that the European Commission would be in contempt of court if it had taken certain action that would have the effect of interfering with orders granting interim relief that had been made in the action. The parties sought their costs. The court held that, in all the circumstances, there should be no order for costs as between the claimant and the Commission. However, the claimant should pay 50% of the defendant Food Standards Agency's costs and no order would be made as to the other 50%. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought proceedings against various defendants, including Siemens Public Ltd Company, alleging infringement a patent concerning a method of operating a pitch-controlled wind turbine. The claimant applied for an order that Siemens provide it with, among other things, information as to its customers within the jurisdiction of the court. The Patents Court held that the balance of justice was in favour of making a Norwich Pharmacal order for disclosure.