Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Knauf Insulation Technology (Knauf) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Knauf and Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL, regarding the application by Knauf for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'ECOSE' as a Community trade mark. 

Arbitration – Award. The appellant appealed against decisions of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, following an arbitration concerning the parties' agreement. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeals, held that the Court of Appeal had erred in setting aside the arbitrator's finding that the appellant had validly terminated the agreement. Further, the arbitrator would have to reconsider the sums which he allowed the respondent to raise by way of set-off or cross-claims. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed a claim by the parents of a child in respect of her death at a hospital run by the defendant NHS trust. It found that the expert evidence criticising the care provided the mother was given in hindsight and that the actions on the doctors delivering the child had been in accordance with reasonable practice. 

Liquidation – Voluntary winding up. The Companies Court held that the respondent directors had known, or ought to have concluded, that there was no reasonable prospect that their company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation and had breached their duties. The directors had failed to establish that they had taken every step to minimise the potential loss. Accordingly, they were liable to contribute to the company's assets. 

Specific performance – Sale of land. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, upholding an order for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property. The Court of Appeal had correctly concluded that the judge had reached a decision which had been correct in law and which should, therefore, be upheld. In the circumstances, it had not been open to the appellant to serve notice to complete, making time of the essence, as he had purported to do, as he had not shown good title by that date. 

Employment – Contract. The Queen's Bench Division held that defendant university's behaviour in refusing the claimant employee's request to be accompanied by a colleague at a disciplinary hearing was such as to seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the defendant and the claimant. On the facts, it would be conspicuously unfair for the defendant to insist on adherence to the literal terms of the conditions so as to deny the claimant the accompaniment at the investigatory meeting. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of its claim for judicial review of a grant of planning permission by the defendant local planning authority for the construction of a link road. The submission that the authority had been obliged to assess the proposal for the link road and the proposal for a residential site as a single project, was unsustainable. Further, the environmental statement had given a fair and more than adequate account of what the cumulative impacts were likely to be. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The present appeal arose from the appellant's attempts to have contact with P, the child of her former partner, in circumstances where, following their separation, the mother had moved with P to Pakistan. The judge had dismissed appellant's applications under the Children Act 1989 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that, as to habitual residence, the judge had applied the proper principles to the relevant facts and there was no reason to interfere with her finding that P had lost her habitual residence in the present jurisdiction when she had left for Pakistan. Further, the circumstances were simply not such as to justify the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimants had sought damages for alleged breaches of competition law going back to 1977. Summary judgment had been granted in favour of the defendants in respect of claims that exceeded the limitation period under s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal. The 'statement of claim' principles applicable to s 32 of the Act applied to competition law claims as much as to any other claims, so those claims had been time-barred. Further, there had been no inconsistency with EU jurisprudence in that finding. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The mother made an application seeking the discharge of the supervision and special guardianship orders made in respect of her child. However, what she had been seeking was a re-hearing of the earlier fact-finding hearing. The mother was given leave to re-open the fact-find. Her application for legal aid was refused. The Family Court held that the effect of the judgment was to re-open the care proceedings under s 31 of the Children Act 1989, that future hearings before the judge would be of those proceedings and the ongoing proceedings before the judge were, accordingly, a 'special Children Act 1989 case', in relation to which the mother was entitled to legal aid in accordance with para 2 of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/104.