Latest Cases

Settlement – Trust. In the course of a family dispute over the control of the Sherlock Holmes museum, the parties met and, later, agreed a settlement for a declaration of trust. A dispute arose as to when the order had been made and what its effects were. The Chancery Division held that the claimants were entitled to declarations on the claim that the declarations of trust dated 11 April 2013 were valid and binding. However, that was all the entitlement that had been established. 

European Union – Commission. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Stichting) against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union by which the General Court had dismissed Stichting's application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission to refuse Stichting full access to several documents relating to the negotiations between the European Union and India aimed at concluding a free trade agreement, pursuant to the third indent of art 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant was a transgender prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for sexual offences she had committed when she was an 18-year-old male. She sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to provide the opportunity to do work specifically linked to sexual offending. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not breached: (i) her public law duty; (ii) the duties under arts 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or (iii) the duties under ss 19, 29 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Giovanni Cosmetics, Inco, against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (TradeMarks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. and Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of a figurative sign depicting the words 'GIOVANNI GALLI' with the drawing of a duck, as a Community trade mark. 

Human Rights – Compatibility of legislation with provisions of human rights convention. The defendant Secretary of State refused to pay the claimants compensation under s 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 after their convictions had been overturned. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration of incompatibility between s 133(1ZA) of the Act and art 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the applications, applied authority to the effect that art 6(2) of the Convention had no bearing on a decision for compensation under s 133 of the Act. Accordingly, a declaration of incompatibility could not be made. 

European union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Bora Creations, SL (Bora), against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between Beauté Prestige International, and Bora regarding the registration by Bora of the word 'essence' as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant university claimed a sum of money in respect of payment due under the validation agreement, pursuant to four invoices rendered in 2012 to the defendant business school. By a letter dated 20 December 2012 the university purported to terminate the validation agreement on account of the defendant's LCB's failure to pay the moneys due under the invoices. LCB denied that the invoices were properly rendered under the validation agreement and asserted that the university's purported termination of the validation agreement was ineffective and was itself a breach of contract. There was also a counterclaim for suspension of the university of LBC's validation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to judgment in respect of the claim and the defendant was entitled to judgment on the counterclaim. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant and the defendant companies had entered into a joint venture agreement concerning the development of a property. The Chancery Division granted the claimant summary judgment on its claim for specific performance of the agreement, specifically in respect of the transfer of shares from the defendant to the claimant where the defences raised stood no reasonable prospects of success. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (tribunal) dismissed the appeal brought by the taxpayer Lothian NHS Health Board (Lothian) against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to uphold the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to reject the taxpayer's claim for recovery of historic input tax. The tribunal decided that the FTT had not committed an error of law in dismissing the taxpayer's appeal,. On the evidence before it, the FTT had been entitled to conclude that the taxpayer had failed to prove its case. 

Insurance – Payment protection insurance. In 2006, the claimant company transferred the non-life component of its payment protection insurance business to the first defendant company under a scheme, which was sanctioned by order of the court (the order). The issue was whether a liability for alleged mis-selling of PPI policies underwritten by the claimant company fell within the ambit of the definition of 'transferred liabilities' in the scheme effecting the transfer, which had been sanctioned by the court the order), and whether liability had been transferred to the first defendant company under the terms of the scheme. The Chancery Division held that on the true construction of the scheme, The 'transferred liabilities', which had been transferred to the first defendant by the order did not include any liability for the alleged mis-selling of PPI.