Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union partly upheld the action brought by The Smiley Company SPRL (Smiley) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between the examiner and Smiley regarding the application by the latter for registration of a trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face. 

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. 

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. 

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). 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division allowed an application by the Trust to progressively exubate an 8 month old child and not reventilate her if she deteriorated. The benefits to the child of continued treatment consisted only in the prolongation of her life by intensive medical intervention. The burdens, which only she had to bear, were considerable. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Aeronautica) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Aeronautica and Creative Brands Marken GmbH regarding the application by the latter for registration of the figurative sign 'TRECOLORE' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 should be interpreted as meaning that the approval of an agreement for the sharing-out of an estate concluded by a guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children constituted a measure relating to the exercise of parental responsibility, within the meaning of art 1(1)(b) of that regulation and thus fell within the scope of the latter, and not a measure relating to succession, within the meaning of art 1(30(f) thereof, excluded from the scope thereof. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 20(2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 should be interpreted as precluding a defendant on whom a European order for payment had been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin had incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form.