Latest Cases

Passing off – Get-up of goods. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's claim for passing off in respect its clinical wet wipes for use in the healthcare industry where, applying settled law to the facts, the claimant had failed to establish its case. There was no risk of deception amongst a sufficiently substantial number of the claimant's customers or potential customers for there to be a real effect on its goodwill. Further, the defendant's products did not amount to instruments of deception. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants' appeals against orders for their extradition to Hungary. The judicial authority's assurance as to the amount of space available to individual prisoners defeated their contention that extradition would violate their rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it was unambiguous and there was no basis for concluding that it would not be honoured. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Mitsubishi) or annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 4381 of 27 June 2012, amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007, relating to a proceeding under art 81 [EC] and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement to the extent that it was addressed to Mitsubishi and Toshiba Corp., in so far as it concerned Mitsubishi and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on Mitsubishi. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Insurance – Transfer of long-term insurance business. The Companies Court approved a insurance business transfer scheme for the transfer by Rothesay Assurance Ltd (RAL) of the whole of its long-term insurance business to another company in the same group, Rothesay Life Ltd (Rothesay Life). It held that, on the evidence, the capital position of Rothesay Life would remain strong after the transfer. There was no realistic prospect of risks to the position of the transferring RAL policyholders. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an application by the claimants to admit expert evidence estimation of their potential career earnings in the construction industry. Having considered CPR PD 35 and its guidance on instructing experts the court accepted the defendants' submissions that the methodology proposed was merely research and further that it could not be said that what was proposed would assist the court in determining the matters which were in issue. 

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.