Latest Cases

Licence – Failure of consideration. The parties contracted to enable them to carry out work in Indonesia relating to the raising of oil platforms. A dispute arose as to whether the defendant company had agreed to pay the claimant a licence fee. The defendant counterclaimed for unpaid invoices. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claim would be dismissed and the counterclaim allowed. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Three young persons subject to orders under the Irish Mental Health system were transferred to an institution in the United Kingdom. The Health Service Executive of Ireland (the HSE) sought orders under s 63 of and Sch 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) recognising and enforcing the orders made by the Irish High Court for the detention of the young persons. The Court of Protection found that the Irish Orders had to be recognised and enforced. 

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The proceedings concerned a dispute between members of a family as to the beneficial ownership of a farm. Under wills made by the deceased father of the claimant in 1999, the farm was left on trust for the claimant subject to certain conditions. The claimant, relying on proprietary estoppel, contended that that was contrary to oral promises, made by his father and assented to by his mother, that he would inherit the farm. The Chancery Division held that the claimant had established a proprietary estoppel such that it would be unconscionable to deny the claimant an equity in the farm. However, the equity did not extend to a bungalow on the farm, which had been occupied by the claimant's siblings and mother. 

Immigration – Education. The defendant Secretary of State found that a proxy test-taker had taken the claimant Bangladeshi national's English language tests and issued a notice of removal. The claimant sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that no improper purpose had been established. Further, an out of country appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) was a demonstrably superior mechanism for the present species of challenge and that fact rendered the claimant's further procedural unfairness ground of challenge moot, as that tribunal could consider that complaint. 

European Union – Insolvency proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that arts 3(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings) should be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the member state in which secondary insolvency proceedings had been opened had jurisdiction, concurrently with the courts of the member state in which the main proceedings had been opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor's assets falling within the scope of the effects of those secondary proceedings. 

Parent and child – Adoption – Recognition of foreign adoption. Court of Session: In a petition in which the petitioners sought recognition of an Ethiopian adoption order at common law, there being no mechanism for its statutory recognition in Scotland, the court considered that it was competent to pronounce the order sought, and it did so. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a reading device for electronic books which had a translation or dictionary function should, where that function was not its principal function, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain, be classified under subheading 8543 70 90 and not under subheading 8543 70 10. 

Trade mark – Registration. The appellant sought to register the sign 'CANARY WHARF' in relation to a range of goods and services, including real estate affairs, construction services and building and landscape design. The examiner refused to register the sign, and the matter was considered by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer agreed with the examiner's decision. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Hearing Officer had been correct to reject the application in its entirety under ss 3(1)c and 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The applicant wife applied, pursuant to r 33.3(2)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, for general enforcement of an order which required, inter alia, the first respondent husband to pay her a lump sum. She sought a third party debt order against sums frozen in a bank account held by the second respondent brother of the husband. The Family Division, in the circumstances, made a final third party debt order against the bank in respect of the sums held by it in or deriving from the account in question. 

European Union – Taxation. Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH (KLE) brought proceedings against the Principal Customs Office, Osnabruck, concerning a levy on nuclear fuel for which KLE was liable under German law in respect of the use by that company of fuel assemblies in the nuclear reactor of that power station. In the course of those proceedings, the Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 107 and 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), art 14(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2003/96, art 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive (EC) 2008/118, and various other provisions of EU law.