Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The claimant had undertaken work on a project, pursuant to a contract with the defendant for the provision of environmental training. The judge dismissed the claimant's claim for unpaid invoices, holding, inter alia, that it was a contractual requirement that sufficient evidence be provided of the actual content of the workshop and that evidence had not been provided, in particular, no presentation slides had been produced. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the material provided had complied with the workshop requirements. Further, if the judge had been intending to say that there had been a contractual obligation to provide slides, the present court disagreed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In a family case in which the parents had married young and which involved high levels of parental conflict, the Family Division made various orders and held that the case was really an issue about contact, which the court would ensure took place. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the application by the taxpayer charity and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners for a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the course of proceedings between the parties which had raised issues concerning the concept of 'economic activity' in the definition of 'taxable person' in art 9 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). 

Medical practitioner – Appeal against determination of disciplinary committee. The appellant Band 6 midwife appealed against the decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the Panel) of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council, finding that her fitness to practise was impaired and striking her off the register. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, rejected the appellant's grounds of appeal, including that there had been delay, changes in the charges, discrimination based on her disability, and that the sanction had been unreasonable and disproportionate. 

Will – Forgery. The Chancery Division considered the validity of a disputed will. It held that, while the circumstances of the making of the will gave rise to suspicion, on the evidence, the will had been made validly and there was no room for finding that the testatrix's signature had been forged. 

Practice – Civil litigation. In the course of a building dispute, the claimants sought a declaration in relation to the right of adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court refused to give the directions that the claimants were seeking. The claimants persisted in seeking directions as to that issue. The court held that no useful purpose was to be served by the pursuit of the claimants' application for a declaration. The claimants' application would be stayed and the proceedings would continue. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action by Alpinestars Research Srl against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Alpinestars Research Srl and Kean Tung Cho and another, concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign depicting the words 'A ASTER'. 

Barrister – Pupillage. The claimant law student issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the requirement that he retake the whole Bar Professional Training Course, rather than only the module he had twice failed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not shown himself competent in that module by other means and that the Bar Standards Board (the BSB) could not have acted unlawfully in not having considered exempting the claimant from the requirements absent an application to do so. It further dismissed the claimant's claim the decision was disproportionate and found that the BSB had given reasons for its decision. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, in circumstances where the victims had been stabbed in the street by a group of youths. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal, rejecting his contentions that there had been material non-disclosures or fresh evidence which undermined the safety of his conviction. 

Patent – Infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that claims 1 and 7 of European Patent (UK) No 2,099,626 B1 (the patent), which claimed an invention entitled 'System for indicating the state of loading of a vehicle', were invalid for lack of inventive step over an item of prior art, namely US Patent No 6,591,677.