Latest Cases

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division considered the validity of two claims in a patent dispute concerning a technique to prevent the corrosion of rebars used in reinforced concrete. The court held that claim 1 of the patent, which described a method, was valid but not infringed. However, claim 12 of the patent, which described a product suitable for use in the technique, was invalid. 

Heritable property – Forged disposition – Reduction. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion by a pursuer who challenged the Lord Ordinary's refusal to grant decree of reduction of a forged disposition, the court held that the Lord Ordinary erred in law by adopting the approach of an exercise of discretion: the deed was null and of no effect, and the pursuer was entitled to decree of reduction. In any event, the court would, had the issue arisen, have interfered with the exercise of the Lord Ordinary's discretion. 

Carriage by air – Jurisdiction – Breach of contract – Denied boarding. Sheriff Court: In an action in which the pursuers averred that on the return trip from a holiday in Sicily they were denied boarding to their pre-booked return flight by the defender, their carrier, and had required to pay for alternative carrier to return them to UK, the court concluded that it was seized of jurisdiction, that the pursuers had failed to prove that it was the defender that caused the damage claimed by breach of contract, but that they were entitled to compensation and reimbursement in terms of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 for having been 'denied boarding' against their will by the defender. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Confidential documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed appeals against case management and other orders in proceedings brought by 565 claimant companies against British Airways arising out of an alleged unlawful cartel. It held that the unredacted version of a European Commission decision should not be disclosed to members of a confidentiality ring and economic tort claims should be struck out, as the judge had erred in his approach to the issue of intent. 

Company – Sole shareholder and director – Personal liability for actions of company. Court of Session: In a case in which the pursuer advanced claims against a company (the fourth defender) and its sole director and shareholder (the third defender) in respect of alleged infringements of trademarks, following a debate on the question of whether the third defender was properly convened as a party to the action on the basis that he was personally liable for the actions of the fourth defender, the court held that the action in so far as directed against the third defender was irrelevant and should be dismissed. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court made no order for costs on applications by both the claimant company and the defendant company to amend their respective pleadings, which had been allowed in earlier proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear their own cost in circumstances where each party had opposed the other's application to amend their pleadings. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Administrative Court, in partially allowing the claimant's judicial review proceedings, found that, for four months, he had been subject to a curfew and tagging when he should not have been. Accordingly, the elements of false imprisonment had been made out during that period. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (H&M) against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning invalidity proceedings between H&M and Yves Saint Laurent SAS regarding the application by the latter for registration of a Community design intended to apply to 'handbags'. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the Decision on the BFA Group restructuring and arts 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which formed the basis for that decision, did not preclude the application, in proceedings relating to a collective redundancy that fell within the scope of that decision, of national legislation under which the compensation payable to an employee whose dismissal was held to be unfair was set at an amount higher than the legal minimum. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by AC-Treuhand AG against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T‑27/10 (EU:T:2014:59), by which that court had dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC and art 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fines imposed on it by that decision.