Latest Cases

Power of attorney – Challenge. The claimant had challenged a power of attorney made in favour of the first and second defendants. In those proceedings, he sought summary judgment and a worldwide injunction restraining the first defendant from acting on the power of attorney. The Chancery Division dismissed both applications. It was arguable that the claimant had not had standing to bring the claim nor had he joined all relevant parties to the proceedings. Consequently, the first defendant had a realistic prospect of success on the claim and the court accepted her undertaking not to use the power of attorney in the United Kingdom pending judgment or further order. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by Stayer Iberica, SA (Stayer) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning invalidity proceedings between ZAO Korporaciya 'Masternet' and Stayer Ibérica, SA, regarding the registration by the latter company for a figurative sign depicting the word 'STAYER' as a Community trade mark. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners had been correct to issue a closure notice treating the taxpayer's out of court settlement sum as being chargeable to income tax under Case VI of Sch D to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and as not being a capital receipt. Consequently, the taxpayer's appeal against the FTT's decision was dismissed. 

Costs – Assessment. Following the dismissal of a single charge of conspiracy to defraud on which the Serious Fraud Office (the SFO) sought to try the six applicants (the dismissal application), the matter came before the court for assessment of costs. The Queen's Bench Division made the assessments pursuant to, amongst others, s 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, challenging his immigration detention between May 2008 and August 2012, excluding a two-month period of bail. The Administrative Court did not accept that the claimant's conduct in presenting himself first as one identity and nationality, later to change to another had principally been a symptom of mental illness. However, by December 2011, the Secretary of State had had a public law duty to release the claimant, as it had become quite clear that she would not be able to effect his deportation within a reasonable period. 

Contract – Breach. The claimants purchased land and a business from the defendants. They brought proceedings, claiming that the defendants had made misstatements regarding the flow of sewage on the land, and had breached their contract. The Chancery Division held that the claims were made out as a matter of liability in relation both to misrepresentation and, to the extent of the business sale agreement, in breach of contract. 

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. 

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. 

Specific performance – Order. The claimant sought specific performance of a settlement agreement with the defendant. The defendant claimed that it was entitled to rescind the settlement agreement for misrepresentation. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that the alleged representation had not been made. Further, the claimant would have taken all further steps necessary but for the fact that the defendant had made it clear that it would not perform its part. Accordingly, the defendant's ground of objection to an order for specific performance was not made out and it was appropriate for such an order to be made.