Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court considered whether trade marks relating to furniture should be revoked. The court gave guidance on the disregarding of territorial borders. The court held that, on the evidence, the Community trade marks in issue had not been used sufficiently outside the United Kingdom in the relevant period, and hence they would be revoked. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The Queen's Bench Division, in deciding a defamation claim brought by the mother of a four year old girl in regard to the alerting of certain 'child safeguarding' services, held that although the words complained of bore the meanings alleged, which were later found to be unfounded, the staff at the defendant hospital had merely been responding in an appropriate manner to the mother's behaviour. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The appellants had brought proceedings challenging the decision to use National Savings and Investments (NS&I) to deliver the Government policy of tax-free childcare. In order for NS&I to administer TFC, it was necessary to amend an outsourcing contract between NS&I and Atos IT Services Ltd. The claim was dismissed and the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding, inter alia, that the amendment of the contract would not be unlawful. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held, inter alia, that the proposed amendment to the contract would not considerably extend the scope of the contract in terms of reg 72(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102 and, therefore, it did not did not involve substantial modifications under reg 72(1)(e). 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(1), 14, 24(1) and 90(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between NLB Leasing d.o.o. and Slovenia, concerning the latter's refusal to allow NLB to adjust the amount of VAT paid following the conclusion of two lease agreements. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The appellant, who was aged 14 at the relevant time, had been photographed during a violent incident at an 'interface area' in Northern Ireland. The police were unable to ascertain his identity through other channels and so his image was authorised for publication in two newspapers with the aim of establishing his identity. The appellant sought judicial review of that authorisation, alleging that publication of his image had breached his right to respect for his private life contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. The test for a reasonable expectation of privacy had not been satisfied on the facts, which involved the publication, in the recent aftermath of criminal activity, of photographs taken of public rioting for the purpose of identifying those involved. 

Injunction – Freezing injunction. In earlier proceedings, the court had set aside a freezing injunction against the first defendant on the ground that it had been misled by the claimant's former solicitors and that the claimants had not come to the court with clean hands. The claimants sought permission to seek a freezing injunction in Singapore. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that, where it had already held that the conduct which had led to the setting aside of the freezing injunction had been particularly disgraceful conduct, it would not sanction the obtaining by the claimants of freezing relief either in the United Kingdom or anywhere else. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The claimant was awarded a Framework Agreement (FA) governing the supply of locum doctors following a procurement exercise conducted by the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division rejected the defendant's complaint that the defendant was operating the FA in a way that was materially different to that which was represented at the time of the procurement exercise. 

Tax – Avoidance. The appellants were affected by retrospectively effective legislative changes to s 45 of the Finance Act 2003 relating to stamp duty land tax. They contended that those changes infringed art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1) and art 6 of the Convention. They were refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the respondents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that A1P1 had not been engaged by the imposition of the legislative changes and, if it had been, the changes had been lawful and proportionate. Article 6 was also not engaged, since tax proceedings did not relate to the determination of a 'civil' right or obligation. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had held that the employee, a disabled prison officer, had been unfairly dismissed by reason of his disability. It also found direct and indirect disability discrimination, disability related discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The employee was awarded compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer's appeal against the finding of liability where no error of law had been made out. However, the appeal concerning remedy was allowed and the matter remitted where the tribunal's findings in relation to past and future losses could not be sustained. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The claimant applied pursuant to s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to set aside an arbitrator's award, in circumstances where it contended that it had never agreed the terms of a draft time charter, including a London arbitration clause. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that, on the evidence, there had been no binding long term charter or arbitration clause and, accordingly, the arbitrator had had no jurisdiction.