Latest Cases

Practice – Extension of time. The Queen's Bench division refused the respondent's application for an extension of time to file a respondent's notice. Among other things, it was clear that, having been granted permission to appeal, the appellant had repeatedly sought to engage with the respondent, and the respondent had repeatedly failed to do so until it had been too late. Equally, whilst there was no question of the respondent seeking to challenge the judge's findings of fact in any way, the consequences of granting the application would not be minimal. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division dismissed a father's application to discharge the care orders that had been made following a fact-finding hearing into the causes of injuries to one of his children (P) before her death in his care. The judge reviewed the medical/pathology evidence in light of testimony from new expert witnesses and maintained his earlier conclusion that the father had perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on P, either using his penis or some other unidentified object. 

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. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the respondent's original appeal from the appellant Secretary of State's decision to deport him and allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against a determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). In the light of Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG ([2014] All ER (D) 124 (Jan)), a decision based on FV (Italy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2013] 1 All ER 1180) could not be sustained. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Trade Marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Laboratorios Ern SA (Laboratorios) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios and michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics regarding the application by the latter company for registration of word mark 'Lenah. C' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union granted the application made by BR IP Holder LLC (BR) for annulment of a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between BR and Greyleg Investments Ltd, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'HOKEY POKEY' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's applications for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decisions to hold a referendum on a draft neighbourhood plan. It had been appropriate for the plan to be made without allocating any further housing land and adequate reasons had been given. The relevant matters had been considered and the scoring system used to select sites for allocation in the plan had not been legally flawed.