Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 82 EC, deciding, among other things, that art 82 EC should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the scope of that article, the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme operated by a dominant undertaking had to be probable, there being no need to show that it was of a serious or appreciable nature. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve two years and six months' imprisonment for three offences of fraud. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, as it had not been established that the appellant had been served with two summonses, it was not established that his absence from the trial had been deliberate. The appellant's extradition was barred, by virtue of s 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, because he would not be entitled to a retrial if returned. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. Three appeals against conviction, challenging decisions of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda, were heard together, as they raised similar questions concerning the admissibility and proper ambit of evidence as to the existence and practices of gangs, and the appellants' connections with them. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellants' appeals, gave extensive guidance on the admissibility of gang evidence, in particular, when given by police officers. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court held that the District judge had been correct in concluding that G, who had been charged in the United States with a number of serious sexual offences allegedly committed against an adolescent boy, would be at risk of being made subject to an order for civil commitment under the system which operated in California and that such an order would be a 'flagrant breach' of his rights under art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division upheld the claimant's challenge under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and under art 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (Council Regulation 207/2009) to the invalidity of the first defendant's mark CRISTALINO JAUME SERRA in relation to, amongst other things, sparkling wines and wines. That decision was based on the fact the claimant's mark CRISTAL had a strong reputation in the United Kingdom and due to the similarity of the signs there would be confusion resulting in dilution and detriment to the distinctiveness of the mark. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court dismissed the second and third respondents' application to use funds in an account for the funding of the defence of the action against them despite the fact that there was a world wide freezing order in place against them. Both the evidence and the overall justice of the case demanded that result. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things that art 5(2) of Directive (EC) 2003/4 should be interpreted as meaning that the charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information could not include any part of the cost of maintaining a database, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for that purpose by the public authority, but could include the overheads attributable to the time spent by the staff of the public authority on answering individual requests for information, properly taken into account in fixing the charge, provided that the total amount of the charge did not exceed a reasonable amount. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division considered the scope of the powers of the trustees of the pension scheme of the charity Barnardo's. It held that, among other things, the trustees could not replace the Retail Prices Index, by which increases to payments under the scheme were calculated, so long as it remained an officially published index. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant brought proceedings for breach of directors' duty against the defendants and the judge granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and set aside the order for summary judgment. 

Trade mark – European Community. The Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the defendant companies' use of the word 'FLYNN' when rebranding imported Epanutin, a drug used in the treatment of epilepsy, was a 'trade mark use' and did not fall within s 11(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and, therefore infringed the claimant company's trade mark. The defendants could only rely on art 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to defeat the claim of infringement if they could show that Epanutin had been placed on the market in the exporting member state by the same entity seeking to prevent its import into the United Kingdom and they had failed to do so.