Latest Cases

Copyright – Ownership. A dispute arose as to the division of publishing or performing rights in a song written by the band The Fall, entitled 'Touch Sensitive'. The dispute centred on whether an agreement as to the distribution of the rights was to be regarded as valid. The claimants submitted that the agreement had been the result of improper pressure being placed on the second claimant songwriter. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that the agreement had not been obtained improperly and, in the circumstances, the claim would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which dismissed the appellant's appeal against the refusal by the respondent Secretary of State to revoke a deportation order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that, if the question of an applicant's nationality was relevant to whether he would suffer persecution, the lesser standard of a reasonable likelihood would apply. However, if it was relevant to some other issue, such as whether it was, in fact, possible in practice for him to be returned, and any rights that might accrue if it was not, the standard was the balance of probabilities. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The second defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction over the claimant's claim against it and the claimant sought an interim anti-suit injunction against the second defendant restraining proceedings against him in Massachusetts. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the applications, held that it had jurisdiction, as the second defendant could be seen as the claimant's employer under European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, although it would not be such as a matter of English law. Further, given an irreconcilable clash between the courts of the United Kingdom and Massachusetts as to jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to grant the anti-suit injunction. 

Practice – Appeal. The issue in the present proceedings was whether the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had the power to grant permission to appeal against a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Administration Appeals Chamber) (the UT) against the decision of the respondent Disclosure and Barring Service. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there was no jurisdiction in it to give permission to appeal against the refusal by the UT of permission to appeal to itself. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In care proceedings concerning two children, the father sought to look after the children alone in Turkey, a plan supported by the mother. The local authority and children's guardian sought that the children stay with their foster parents, who should have the status of special guardians. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, the best interests of the children would not be served by placing them with their father. Special guardianship orders were granted and plans for contact were approved. 

Practice – Order. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, upholding its appeal against the respondent Competition and Markets Authority's decisions, but remitting them to the original inquiry group. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, gave guidance on the circumstances in which a court or tribunal quashing a decision by an administrative body should remit that decision to be remade by a freshly constituted decision-making body. It held that the matter should be remitted to the original inquiry group as a fair-minded and informed observer would not find a real possibility of bias and absent reasonably perceived unfairness. 

Patent – Infringement. The defendant appealed against the judge's decision that it was precluded, by the parties' settlement agreement, from challenging the validity of the claimant's patent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the settlement agreement prevented the defendant from raising the issue of validity by way of counterclaim or defence to the claimant's claims for breach of the settlement agreement and patent infringement, assuming that the claimant could properly pursue its infringement claim. Further, the claimant was not contending for a materially different interpretation of the patent than at the time of the settlement agreement. 

Family provision – Award. The appeal arose out of financial remedy proceedings. The husband appealed against the financial remedy award and against the effective dismissal of his application to set aside the financial remedy award on the basis of alleged material non-disclosure by the wife. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeals. As to the former, the reality of the present case clearly indicated that the judge had assessed the fairness of the case to be needs, not equality and had given adequate reason for the departure from equality. As to the latter, the circumstances had all pointed to stopping the matter from proceeding further. 

European Union – Environment. The General Court of the European Union dismissed an action brought by the applicants for the partial annulment of a decision by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying certain chemicals, considered to cause breathing difficulties if inhaled, as substances of very high concern and including them in the list of candidate substances in accordance with art 59 of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals). The Court held, among other things, that the wording of art 57(f) of the Regulation did not rule out the inclusion of respiratory sensitisers such as in the present case within scope of that provision and that the arguments put forward by the applicants did not show that the ECHA's assessment as to the irreversible nature of the effects on health was vitiated by a manifest error. 

Practice – Litigant in person. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Lord Chancellor's appeal, held that it was not possible to interpret either s 1 of the Courts Act 2003 or s 31G(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 as having given the court the power to require the Lord Chancellor to provide funding for legal representation, in circumstances where such funding was not available under a scheme as detailed and comprehensive as that which had been set up under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The court had to respect the boundaries drawn by Parliament for public funding of legal representation.