Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Rod Leichtmetallrader GmbH (Rod) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rodi TR, SL, and Rod concerning the successful registration by the latter of a figurative mark in black and white depicting the word 'ROD' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge's refusal to adduce evidence of the complainant's previous convictions, pursuant to s 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, had not rendered unsafe the defendant's conviction for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The previous convictions did not have substantial probative value in relation to the real issue in the case. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decision not to recommend his move to an open prison. Despite the fact that facilities necessary for enabling the claimant to carry out the required additional work had not been provided, there had not been any irrationality or other error of law in the Parole Board's decision. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division considered the defendant solicitors' firm's applications for disclosure of certain documents in the context of a claim brought against it by the claimant for professional negligence and made rulings to the extent of disclosure to be allowed. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court dismissed an application for directions made by the applicant trustee, P, as to whether to admit a proof of debt filed by the respondent liquidators and whether a meeting of creditors should be convened at the liquidators' request. P's role was to make hard decisions such as the one in the present case. Such applications were to be discouraged. 

Solicitor – Retainer. The Chancery Division considered the enforceability of a contract between the claimant company, Garnat, and its solicitors, TC. The court held that the retainer between the parties, as amended by an agreement made whilst representing Garnat in an appeal, was partly unenforceable. The unenforceable provisions could be severed. It followed that TC was entitled to charge Garnat for any work falling within the scope of the retainer, excluding the appeal. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an appeal by a local authority against a decision by a trial judge refusing to authorise a patient's deprivation of liberty in his home pursuant to s 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Court found that the judge had, in her zeal to have the patient accommodated more suitably, failed to apply the best interests test by which all substantive decisions of the court were governed. Had she applied that test she could have granted the authorisation. 

Capital gains tax – Assessment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a taxpayer's appeal against a discovery assessment under s 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 for the same reasons that his appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had previously been dismissed. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that that European Union law, in particular art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, should be interpreted as meaning that the instruments adopted in the context of the European Competition Network (ECN), in particular the ECN Model Leniency Programme, were not binding on national competition authorities. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, in a decision in relation to the capacity of a young adult Z, on the autistic spectrum with a diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome, found that the evidence before the court by a margin was that Z was able to 'use or weigh' information as required by s 3(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 about risk to herself, and her ability to keep herself safe in independent living, and in her social contacts.