Latest Cases

Patent – Medicine. The Chancery Division made declarations as sought by the claimant pharmaceutical companies. It held that the initial marketing authorisation for a drug, Ribomustin, had been obtained in 2005, as contended by the claimants, rather than 2010, as contended by the defendant pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the ten-year period of delay before the claimants could market their own product had commenced in 2005, not 2010. 

Employment – Transfer of employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing an employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had not erred in ruling that because an employee, who had been on long term sick leave, had not contributed to the economic activity of a company's grouping he not assigned to that grouping and his employment had not transferred to a new employer within meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. 

Insolvency – Administration. The Companies Court held that directions for the administration of the statutory trusts could be given on an application under para 63 to Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 Act and, on the application of the administrators, it gave directions regarding the distribution of money in the client accounts of insurance intermediary companies, AXA and Aviva, which had gone into administration. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee had been dismissed following an investigation into possible misconduct. He appealed against the employment tribunal's dismissal of his claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, ruled that, the tribunal had erred in failing to give consideration to what had led to the investigating officer having a change of heart in circumstances where the Human Resources appeared to have persuaded him to take more critical view of the employee's conduct and to reject his explanation. Whilst an investigating officer was entitled to seek guidance from Human Resources or others, such advice should be limited to matters of law and procedure and to ensuring that all necessary matters have been addressed and achieve clarity. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by CareAbout GmbH (CareAbout) against the 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 José Luis Florido Rodriguez and CareAbout concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'kerashot' as a Community trade mark. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal concerning whether the judge had been wrong to have held that the claimant should not suffer the normal consequences of not having accepted a CPR Pt 36 offer. The judge had concluded that the normal consequences would be unjust and that conclusion had been based on relevant considerations. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's ruling that he had not been unfairly dismissed notwithstanding procedural shortcomings in the termination of his employment on the ground of misconduct. The tribunal had taken into account the procedural failings, had not adopted the wrong approach and there was no error of law that vitiated that decision. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Latam Airlines Group SA and Lan Cargo SA for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that Air Canada and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by SAS Cargo Group A/S and others for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that those companies and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted the third defendant joint tortfeasor's application for summary judgment on the basis that a consent order made with the two of the joint feasors meant that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success against the third defendant as the claim had been satisfied by the consent order.