Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that Directive (EC) 97/67 should be interpreted as meaning that a money order service by which the sender, in the present proceedings, the state, transferred sums of money to a beneficiary through the postal operator entrusted with providing the universal postal service did not fall within the scope of that directive. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a wife's application for the committal to prison of her husband for failure to comply with two specific disclosure orders in ancillary relief proceedings. The orders had been validly served by email as ordered by the court and the application notice had been served by the same method. The judge dispensed with the need for personal service and concluded that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband had not only failed to comply, but had been defiant in his refusal. The sentence was backed by a request for a European arrest warrant. 

Order – Amendment. The Technology and Construction Court, in a case concerning the interpretation of a complex contract, dismissed the defendant's application to amend an order that there be a statement of agreed facts by adding a requirement that it should include background matters relevant to the dispute and a chronology of factual matrix documentation. The amendment sought was unnecessary and unduly prescriptive as well as going beyond what was contemplated by the order that there be a statement of agreed facts. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Dyson Ltd against the European Commission for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013, supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Editions Quo Vadis (Editions) 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 Mr Francisco Gómez Hernández and Éditions, regarding the application by the former for registration of the word sign 'QUO VADIS' as a Community word mark. 

Passing off – Descriptive name. The Chancery Division dismissed applications by both the claimant and the defendant companies for summary judgment in circumstances where consumers had looked at the defendant's website by mistake, generating advertising revenue for the defendant. The court held that the case was not suitable for summary judgment and that the defendant's application for a declaration of non-infringement would not be granted. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered the claimant company's applications for freezing injunctions to prevent both of the defendant companies from selling a full label generic pregabalin product, thereby infringing the claimant's patent. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to grant both injunctions. 

Patent – Validity. The Patents Court ruled that the claimant, Saab's, claim for the revocation of patents concerning mine clearance devices succeeded in part on the ground of obviousness. The defendant's counterclaim for infringement succeeded in part in respect of one of its patents. 

Immigration – Detention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of his detention pending removal to Afghanistan, holding, among other things, that the detention of the claimant impugned in the proceedings had been lawful, as the defendant Secretary of State had been entitled to treat him as an adult. 

Company – Voluntary winding up. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the defendant former liquidator's appeal against an order that she contribute £548,074.56 to the assets of a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation by way of compensation for her breaches of duty. The illegality defence could not apply, as there had been no inextricable link between the claim and the fraudulent conduct, and the policy of requiring liquidators properly to collect and distribute the assets of the company that had to prevail.