Latest Cases

European Union – Community trade mark. The Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to the extent that it upheld an appeal by a bank, which had opposed the registration of the applicant's trade mark on the basis of an earlier mark, in respect of real estate services covered by the applicant's trade mark. There was no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue in respect of the real estate services covered by the Community trade mark application. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Family Division ruled that a father, who had brought family proceedings seeking contact with his daughter, and who had unsuccessfully brought committal proceedings against CAFCASS officers, and against the third defendant solicitor, who had represented his former partner, had to pay the third defendant's costs on the indemnity basis. 

Commercial contract – Construction. Court of Session: Dismissing a reclaiming motion an action by a pursuer who, during his employment with the defenders became a partner and invested money in seven limited partnerships designed to reward employees and provide them with performance incentives, and who on leaving the defenders' employment was told he was a 'competing leaver' in terms of the partnership agreements and therefore only entitled to restricted payment for his share in each partnership, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had reached the correct conclusion for the correct reasons when he decided that the pursuer was not a 'competing leaver' and granted declarator that he was an ordinary leaver. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division ruled that, applying the core principle of the Brussels Convention that people should be sued in their home state, and applying settled law, the English court had no jurisdiction to hear a claim for a declaration of non-infringement of any Community design right or any UK unregistered design right vested in the defendant, Logitech, a Swiss company, in respect of its impact protection cases for iPads. However, the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim in respect of a threat to bring infringement proceedings in the English courts allegedly made on behalf of Logitech against the claimant company. 

Landlord and tenant – Possession. The claimants sought to recover damages as a consequence of the second defendant's re-possession of a farm, which they alleged had been unlawful. The Queen's Bench Division held, among other things, that the claimants had not established an estoppel by representation against the second defendant and it followed that the claimants could not contend that the second defendant had gone into possession of the farm unlawfully. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union rejected the applicant company's claims seeking the annulment of the respondent European Commission's decision that it had been involved in two cartels and its claim seeking the reduction of the fines imposed. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant was entitled to summary judgment on his application to enforce an adjudication decision. It held that, both for reasons of principle and pragmatism, at least in a case where there could be no doubt that the adjudicator, if properly informed, should and would have concluded that he had had jurisdiction and the proper basis of jurisdiction did not make a difference to the substantive outcome, the court should not shut out a claimant who came to the court to enforce the adjudicator's decision. 

Judicial review – Act of Scottish Parliament – Human rights – Data protection. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, the court held: (1) that the Lord Ordinary applied the correct test as regards the standing of the first to fourth petitioners, although it disagreed with his conclusion that they lacked sufficient interest to pursue the alleged contraventions of EU law or breaches of fundamental rights; (2) that the named person service provisions in Pt 4 of the Act were not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and hence beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament; and (3) the challenges to the information sharing and disclosure provisions in the Act must be rejected. 

Immigration – Expulsion – Right to family life. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by an Indian national for whom removal directions had been set, who challenged a decision to certify his human rights claim as clearly unfounded, the court held that the court's function when determining the legality of a certificate under s 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was one of review, that there was no material error of law in the decision-maker not carrying out an assessment of the petitioner's claim outwith the Immigration Rules, and although the decision letter lacked a clear statement that the decision-maker had concluded that there was no need to go outwith the rules, that error of law was not material. 

Bailment – Bailment for reward. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claim for damages from the defendant for breach of duty as a bailee, said to have arisen out of the destruction by arson of a vehicle whilst in the defendant's possession. The damage, caused as it had been by an apparently isolated, but determined and deliberate, arson attack had not been caused by any failure on the part of the defendant to take reasonable care.