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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was a corporate entity which provided services to the United Kingdom and other governments. The defendant was a former employee of the claimant and the author of at least two blogs in which confidential information was published. The claimant sought an order requiring the respondent solicitors for the defendant, to disclose his name. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and held that the disclosure of the client's name would have the practical effect of disclosing confidential communications between lawyer and client. 

Shipping – Charterparty. A dispute arose about the alleged extending of a charterparty of a vessel. Considering anticipatory breach to have occurred, the owners sought to accept the breach and sold the vessel. By the time of the hearing, it was apparent that there was a significant difference in the value of the vessel when the owners sold it and November 2009, when the vessel would have been redelivered to owners had the charterers not been in breach of the charterparty. The Commercial Court held that the owners had not been required to give any credit for any benefit in realising the capital value of the vessel in October 2007, when the owners had arranged to sell it. 

Arbitration – Award. Following a dispute between the parties, the claimant company, Diag, succeeded against the defendant Czech Republic in an arbitration. It sought to enforce the arbitration award in a number of countries, including Austria. The Supreme Court of Austria held that the award had not yet become binding on the parties. Diag, sought to enforce the award in the English court. The court held that the Supreme Court of Austria's decision gave rise to an issue estoppel that would prevent Diag from enforcing the judgment in the English court. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee recovered compensation in respect of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. The employer sought a review of the award, with a request to stay the review pending the determination of an appeal in relation to another employee who had been involved in the same incident and dismissed. The employment judge refused the employer's application. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the judge had erroneously rejected the application at the threshold stage. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted for consideration. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal upheld the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal, subject to a 75% deduction under the Polkey principles and 75% contribution and dismissed his complaint for wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred by failing to make specific findings of fact as to the misconduct alleged against the employee, both in relation to contributory fault and wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, those matters would be remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration. 

Legal aid – Expert evidence. In private law children proceedings, the district judge had ordered the instruction of a psychotherapist and subsequently ordered that the parties jointly instruct the psychotherapist with the claimant child, who was publicly funded, to bear the costs (the order). The Legal Services Commission refused to pay for the report and the judge, on the claimant's judicial review application, upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the order had been made at the instigation of the children's guardian on the claimant's behalf and it had not fallen foul of s 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. 

Medical treatment – Withdrawal of treatment. The applicant NHS Foundation Trust sought authority to provide, in the exercise of its clinical discretion, life-sustaining treatment to the first respondent 52 year old man, TH, in a minimally conscious state. The Court of Protection held that the correct course was to adjourn the issue concerning the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration to provide for a structured clinical assessment. It considered TH's views and found that the weight to be given to those views and how they were to be balanced should await the conclusion of that assessment. 

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. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of his immigration detention and the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of accommodation under s 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On the evidence, the claimant could have accommodated himself, and the Secretary of State had correctly judged when the time had come for release and had not acted unlawfully in having failed to release the claimant earlier.