Latest Cases

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 26 of Directive (EC) 2004/18 had to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which required tenderers and their sub-contractors to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who were called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation. 

Charging order – Land. The Chancery Division dismissed the appellants' appeal against the imposition of a charging order made over their property and the county court judge's refusal to grant them relief from sanctions. The court held that the judge had been fully justified in making the orders that it had. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, with respect to remoteness, where contractual and tortious duties to take care in carrying out instructions existed side by side, the test for recoverability of damage for economic loss should be the same and should be the contractual one. Although the judge had applied the tortious test for remoteness, the same damages were recoverable applying the test for remoteness in contract. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered art 13 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 and decided that although there had not been exposure to a grave risk of psychological or physical harm if L were returned to Bulgaria, L's wishes were to be taken into account and therefore the threshold in art 13 had been reached. 

Contempt of court – Publications concerning legal proceedings. The Divisional Court held that the defendant, Condé Nast, had been in contempt of court. Its publication of an article in GQ in the course of the phone-hacking trial had created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the trial would be seriously prejudiced or impeded. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimants' application for summary judgment in a dispute about the cost of extra work to a defective house, where there had been a compelling agreement between the claimants and the defendant builders. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim for professional negligence against the defendant solicitor. On the judge's findings of fact, the defendant had been working under a limited retainer and she had not been under a duty to give the broader advice or warnings for which the claimant contended. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by CEDC International sp. z o.o., (CEDC) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks ad Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between the predecessor to CEDC, Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA, concerning the registration by the former of a figurative sign consisting of the representation of a bovine animal, depicting the word 'WISENT'. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal regarding dismissal of their application for declarations regarding the ownership of copyright in the music and lyrics of certain Bob Marley songs. On the true construction of an agreement which pre-dated the claimants' purported acquisition of copyright, a group of companies, of which the defendant company was a member, was the copyright owner of those works and there had been no error of law in the judge's interpretation of that agreement. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered the claimant company's challenge to a patent that disclosed a second medical use of the drug atomoxetine, also known as tomoxetine, for use in treating ADHD. It held that, among other things, the patent was not obvious and nor insufficient, and hence the claim for revocation would be dismissed.