Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda (Pera-Grave) by which it had sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union which had dismissed the action brought by Pera-Grave for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to reject the opposition to the registration by Pera-Grave of a figurative mark which included the word 'PERAMANCA'. 

Libel and slander – Justification. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for slander and libel for words spoken and subsequently broadcast on the BBC and ITV, and an eBook she published. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the claim concerning the BBC was time-barred and the defendant was not a co-publisher. Although the claim as to ITV was actionable without proof of special loss, the defendant's account had been true. With respect to the eBook, justification had been established, although the claimant had not been identified and the claim was an abuse of process. 

Company – Administration. The Companies Court held that a company in administration was entitled to restitution to some degree in respect of payments made out of the company to the defendants. The court dismissed an application by the joint administrators of the company, under s 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which alleged that the payments to the defendants amounted to transactions at an undervalue, where there was no evidence that the company had 'dealt' with the defendants or had entered into a transaction with them, within the meaning of s 238(4) of the Act. 

Company – Shares. The claimant appealed against the judge's grant of an option to acquire the defendant's single share in their quasi-partnership company for the sum of £55,000 in his claim for unfair prejudice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not departed from his earlier order for the valuation of the share without any proper evidential basis or giving the parties a proper opportunity to respond. Further, his imaginative solution to the difficult problem of remedy facing him had been well within the broad scope of the statutory discretion afforded to him. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Vietnamese national challenged the defendant local authority's decision, assessing him to be an adult born on 8 July 1990. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the claimant's evidence was coherent, truthful and supported. Further, the authority's age assessment had not been Merton-compliant, as the claimant had not had an opportunity to comment on adverse points. Accordingly, the claimant was the age he claimed to be, namely, 18 years. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants applied to quash the first defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse them planning permission for development on land in the Green Belt and an area of special county value. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the development had been inappropriate in the Green Belt without very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. Further, that had to have been clear to the claimants as the reason their application had failed. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appellant Afghan national was refused asylum under on the basis that he had been complicit in war crimes in Afghanistan, but he was granted leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal would plainly have come to the same conclusion if it had, in fact, applied the standard of proof set out in Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department; DD (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2013] 1 All ER 1267) rather than Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2002] UKIAT 4870). 

Arbitration – Commencement. The claimants applied for an extension of time of three years and eight months in respect of the expiry of the one year Hague/Hague Visby limitation period, in accordance with the terms of an arbitration clause in the relevant charter party, incorporated by the relevant bills of lading. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that, by reference to s 12(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996, it was the conduct of the defendants which had to make it unjust to hold the claimants to the time limit, and there had not been any such conduct. As for discretionary matters, the merits could not affect that conclusion. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the first defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant planning permission for an energy from waste facility. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had had before him all the evidence and submissions from witnesses, and there was nothing in the decision to suggest that he had excluded any of the evidence from proper consideration. The court could not substitute its view for that of the planning decision-maker in matters of planning judgment. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's failure to provide her with support in her care of a looked after child, namely, her grandson. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to establish that, at any material time, the authority had acted unlawfully in determining that the child had been a child in need who had required accommodation. The authority had not facilitated the purely voluntary arrangement in any way and it had not been due to its exercise of statutory power or duty.