Latest Cases

Child – Care. Ex parte wardship proceedings were brought in respect of four children, all British citizens, as there were reasonable grounds for believing that the entire family had left the UK to join Islamic State in Syria. They remained wards of court. The matter returned to court inter partes to get guidance on the wardship order previously made and to examine the reporting restriction order (RRO) in place. The Family Division held the wardship order had been correctly made and would continue however, the RRO had served its purpose and no longer had any function. 

Mistake – Rectification. Two properties were placed in trust for the benefit of the claimant. Her father loaned her money to purchase one of the properties. The claimant made a settlement by which she would pay the loan back to her father. The solicitor failed to inform her of the negative effects of doing so. On learning of the negative effects, she sought to have the settlement set aside, on the grounds of equitable mistake. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Commissioners resisted the application. The Chancery Division held that, applying settled law, it was appropriate for the settlement to be set aside. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant challenged the legality of, and sought to set aside, arrangements granting the defendant trustee a first fixed equitable charge over gilts on the basis that the arrangements had been entered into in contravention of s 320 of the Companies Act 1985. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the scheme was not voidable under s 320 of the Act, as the directors were contingent beneficiaries, and the trustee had been acting in its capacity as trustee of a pension scheme and had not been a 'connected person'. Further, the trustee was entitled to indemnification and interest concerning the costs of the proceedings. 

Immigration – Asylum – Leave to appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an application for leave to appeal by a Sri Lankan asylum seeker, whose claim was rejected by the First Tier Tribunal and whose appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal, the court concluded that there was not a strongly arguable error of law in the case and the application did not therefore meet the second appeals test. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union granted the annulment sought by adidas AG in respect of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA, regarding the application by the latter company for registration of a figurative mark consisting of 'two parallel lines positioned on the outside surface of the upper part of a shoe' as a Community trade mark. 

Confidential information – Interlocutory injunction. The claimant company, Allfiled, brought proceedings alleging that the defendants, three of whom were former directors of Allfiled, had conspired to set up their own business and had caused employees to leave Allfiled. It sought interlocutory injunctive relief against the defendants pending trial or further order, to prevent them from using, disclosing or disseminating Allfiled's confidential information and intellectual property. The Chancery Division made an order accordingly. 

Declaration – Discretion to grant. The claimant and the defendant were father and son. The claimant sought the return of the cars which he maintained were and always had been, his property. The defendant came before the court seeking a declaration that the four vintage cars in his possession were in fact his property. The Queen's Bench Division held that the cars were and remained the property of the claimant. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant Royal Marine injured himself whilst away on basic training during some free time given. The claimant brought a claim in damages against the defendant Ministry of Defence. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claim on the basis that there had been no breach of duty on the part of the corporal in charge of the claimant and his collegues. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Formula One Licensing BV (Formula One) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), concerning opposition proceedings between Formula One and Idea Marketing SA regarding the acquisition by the latter company of an international registration designating the European Community in respect of the word mark 'F1H2O'. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother appealed against an order providing for R to have supervised contact with her father. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that it was clear that the judge had given full and proper consideration to each of the relevant factors necessary for the risk assessment required by s 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010, Practice Direction 12J. His conclusion that face-to-face contact was in R's best interests, in a supervised setting, was justified on the basis of that risk assessment and was a conclusion that had been well within the range of justifiable welfare determinations.