Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 5 of Council Directive (EEC) 89/104 should be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark registered in one or more member states could oppose a third party placing goods bearing that trade mark under the duty suspension arrangement after they had been introduced into the European Economic Area and released for free circulation without the consent of that proprietor. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The claimants issued proceedings in tort, under the Human Rights Act 1998 and public law claims concerning their detention by British armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq for longer than 96 hours. The judge's findings included that the act of state defence applied to the tort claims. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the application of the act of state defence required compelling considerations of public policy which would require the court to deny a claim in tort founded on an act of the executive performed abroad. 

Negligence – Hospital. The Queen's Bench Division on the issue of liability in relation to an injury suffered by the claimant as a result of the alleged negligence of the actions of the receptionist at the Accident and Emergency of the defendant hospital held that ultimately, it was the claimant who had to take responsibility for the consequences of the decision to leave the A and E department and not the defendant by its reception staff. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Admiralty and Commercial Court held that contempt had been proven against the respondent company, Corcosa, and two of its directors, following the complete ignoring of six GAFTA arbitration awards made against Corcosa. The second and third respondents would each be committed to prison for 18 months. 

Company – Administration. In the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe), the Chancery Division addressed the administrators' application for directions regarding the entitlement of creditors to interest on their debts for periods after the commencement of that administration. The court construed r 2.88 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, and its provisions for the payment of statutory interest. 

Solicitor – Practice. The Chancery Division considered whether a statutory trust created when the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) intervened in the business of a limited liability partnership extended to money that could be shown to have belonged to the practice when it had been conducted in the name of the partnership that had proceeded it. The court held that, on the true construction of the word 'practice' in para 6(2) of Pt II of Sch 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974, the money in issue fell within the scope of the trust imposed on the applicant solicitor by the SRA. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division, on preliminary issues in defamation proceedings, held amongst other things that s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provided that a statement was not defamatory of a person unless it had caused or would probably cause serious harm to that person's reputation, those being matters that had to be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities. The intention of Parliament was that claimants should have to go beyond showing a tendency to harm reputation. The court could have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including evidence of what had actually happened after publication. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 13(B)(a) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 had to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which was independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which could affect certain parts of that vehicle constituted an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Colombian national's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) dismissing her appeal against a deportation order made against her by the respondent Secretary of State, pursuant to s 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007. The UT had had jurisdiction to consider, and had been right to hold, that the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in law and that its decision could not stand. In re-making the decision, the UT had identified and carefully considered all the factors which had favoured the appellant and given full weight to them. It had been entitled, nonetheless, to conclude that they had not been strong enough to outweigh the public interest in deportation. 

Income tax – Partnership. The 154 taxpayers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the legality of partner payment notices given by the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners in the exercise of new powers under the Finance Act 2014. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of natural justice and the decision to give the notices was neither unreasonable nor irrational. Further, there had been no breach of the taxpayers' legitimate expectations, or their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention.