Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by JP Divver Holding Company Ltd (Divver) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between the examiner and Divver regarding the application by the latter for registration of the word mark 'EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE' as a Community trade mark. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Administrative Court refused to recommend a reduction of the offender's tariff of 12 years, less the time spent in custody on remand, for murder, as exceptional and unforeseen progress had not been established. 

Contract – Agent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the restrictions on the second respondent in his contract with the appellant company were enforceable and there had, therefore, been a breach of contract on the part of the second respondent. The judge's finding that the first respondent had unlawfully procured a breach of the second respondent's contract with the appellant was upheld. Accordingly, judgment for the appellant would be entered but, since it could not quantify its loss, no more would be done. 

Company – Administration order. The Chancery Division considered, among other things, the circumstances in which a former administrator of a company in administration could seek relief against the restoration of a company to the register. It held that it was appropriate to make a winding-up order regarding the company, but no order would be made treating the petition seeking the restoration of the company to the register and for its immediate winding up as if it had been made on a date other than the one when it had actually been made. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following earlier proceedings (see [2015] All ER (D) 279 (Oct)), the Chancery Division ruled that that the third respondent ought to pay to the petitioning creditor the costs fairly attributable to its response to her own hostile rescission application and to her particular opposition to the class remedy sought by the petitioning creditor (though not those costs which would have been incurred even if she had not appeared). 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Administrative Court, reduced the offender's tariff of 17 years and 1 month for murder by ten months, as the offender's progress had been exceptional. 

Negligence – Limitation of action. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had suffered from a symptomatic asbestos-related condition from 2000. That that was when his cause of action had arisen and he first had knowledge that his injury was significant then. Consequently, the limitation period applicable under s 11(4) had expired well before 2011 and therefore his claim failed. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court rejected the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant the interested party planning permission for a residential-led mixed use development. Its conclusions included that there had been no erroneous approach to emerging policy, no breach of statutory duty and no procedural unfairness. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The Family Division held that the ancillary relief hearing would go ahead in the absence of the husband and that the wife's proposals which would allow for a clean break were entirely reasonable. The husband would pay the costs under a charging order on a beneficially owned property and due to proof of iniquity the right to privacy in the hearing of the ancillary relief application would be forfeited based on the husband's behaviour.