Latest Cases

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'. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant Romany Gypsy challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for the change of use of land to a single pitch Gypsy site for one mobile home and one touring caravan. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector's decision had been one which had been free of any legal error. 

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). 

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. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant NHS Commissioning Board alleged that it had overpaid the defendant GPs in respect of payments made to them towards their practice's costs of purchasing premises and it sought repayment or rectification of the relevant contract. The payments had been based on the fixed interest rate originally payable for the defendants' loan. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant's application for summary judgment where there was no arguable case that there was an implied term that premises costs were to be paid in accordance with the National Health Service (General Medical Services Premises Costs (England) Directions 2004. Further, the case of rectification for mistake was lacking in any evidential basis and had no prospect of success. 

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. 

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. A judge had determined that a standstill agreement between the parties, which provided that time would be suspended for the purposes of any limitation defence in relation to claims made by the claimant, did not have the effect of suspending time in relation to the claimant's claims in deceit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal as, on the proper construction of that agreement, the claims in dishonesty arose indirectly from the background to the claims as set out in the agreement. 

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. 

Evidence – Foreign tribunal. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the applicant's application made under s 2 of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 to allow the Westminster Coroner to release blood and other samples taken from the body of the deceased so that they might be sent for testing at the Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination in Moscow in accordance with an order of a Russian court, in order to prove the applicant's paternity.