Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (REM) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market relating to invalidity proceedings between Nedschroef Holding BV and REM, concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'TRILOBULAR' as a Community trade mark. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, once one had arrived at the conclusion that a previous decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was admissible evidence of what it had decided, then, in the absence of guidelines laid down by the Upper Tribunal itself, it was a question of what weight a subsequent tribunal should give it. No doubt the extent to which the previous decision was a decision on general points of interest, rather than specific facts and the cogency of the reasoning would impact on the weight to be given to a particular decision, but that was a matter for the subsequent tribunal. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant building contractor's appeal against the dismissal of its claim for injunctive and declaratory relief to restrain the defendant employers from proceeding with an adjudication to determine the sum properly due to the claimant, following termination of the contract. The judge had not erred in his construction of para 9(2) of Pt 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. The defendants were entitled to proceed to adjudication in order to determine the correct value of the claims and counterclaims. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The Supreme Court dismissed Marks and Spencer's appeal in which it had sought to recover an apportionment of rent paid quarterly in advance, in circumstances where it had exercised a break clause that had led to determination of the lease during that quarter. Save in a very clear case, it would be wrong to attribute to a landlord and a tenant, particularly when they had entered into a full and professionally drafted lease, an intention that the tenant should receive an apportioned part of the rent payable and paid in advance, when the non-apportionability of such rent had been so long and clearly established. Therefore, the court refused to imply a term allowing Marks and Spencer to recover the sums paid. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that the patient had capacity to determine her own medical treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The consequence of that decision was that M would die. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of protection refused an application by the patient's neighbour, the applicant, to be appointed her deputy in place of the local authority. The applicant had failed to satisfy the court that it was in the patient's best interest and also the patient's wish was that the authority remain her deputy. 

Practice – Evidence. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the defendant's application to adduce expert evidence from a quantity surveyor with expertise in dispute resolution, on condition that it was subject to close control. In all the circumstances, expert evidence was necessary and, in any event, there were issues in respect of which the evidence would be of assistance and it was reasonable to require expert evidence to be given in the context of the proceedings as a whole. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The Administrative Court previously found the second defendant Secretary of State in breach of public law duty to provide systems and resources the claimant prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection needed to demonstrate that detention was no longer necessary for public protection. As the first and second claimants had completed the healthy sex programme course and the second claimant would be provided with it in April to June 2016, it was no longer necessary to make a mandatory order. 

Local authority – Transport. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal by the claimant local authority against the award of an arbitrator on preliminary questions regarding the vesting of certain highway property in the respondent Transport for London. It made rulings on the meaning of 'highway' in the circumstances, and the extent of the horizontal and vertical planes covered by the freehold. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that, following a judgment in favour of the defendant in a building contract dispute, as a matter of construction, an offer to settle was and/or should be treated as a defendant's CPR Pt 36 offer and costs were awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis.