Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Swatch AG against 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 Swatch AG and Panavision Europe Ltd (PEL) concerning the application by PEL for registration of the word mark 'SWATCHBALL' as a Community trade mark. 

Trade mark – Registration. The applicant's application for registration of two trade marks had been rejected under s 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as lacking distinctiveness. The Chancery Division dismissed the appeal. The hearing officer had not applied the wrong test, his findings had not been inconsistent with his findings regarding descriptiveness under s 3(1)(b) and he had clearly set out his reasons for having found that the applicant's evidence had not demonstrated the kind of use that would have caused the marks to acquire distinctiveness. 

Unfair dismissal – Reasons justifying dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the employee bus driver's claim for unfair dismissal on the ground that she had repeatedly refused to attend the employer's in-house training centre and that the penalty of dismissal lay within the band of reasonable responses a reasonable employer could have adopted. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal on the basis that the tribunal had erred in failing to make proper findings as to: (i) the reason(s) for the dismissal of the appeal; and (ii) the reason(s) for and reasonableness of the employee's dismissal by reference to that or those reasons. Consequently, the case would be remitted to the tribunal for those matters to be considered. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had applied to the respondent local authority for accommodation. It found that she had become intentionally homeless. That decision was confirmed on review, upheld by the county court judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal, finding that the chain of causation between her earlier, deliberate, act and her homelessness had been broken by a supervening event which would have rendered her homeless at the time her case had been considered, whether or not the deliberate act had taken place. 

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's complaints of, among other things, unfair dismissal. However, it decided that the employer had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments in respect of the employee's disability. The employee appealed on the ground that, having made that finding, the employer ought to have considered whether the employer had discriminated against her under s 39(2)(c) and 7(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The employer appealed on the basis that the tribunal had failed to make proper findings as to whether the adjustments sought by the employee had in fact been reasonable. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed both appeals and remitted the matter to the same tribunal for consideration. 

Land – Estates or interests capable of subsisting at law. The second defendant trustees owned a site of land over which the claimants had obtained a unilateral notice following the issuing of a claim. The notice inhibited the ability of the trustees to deal with their property. The trustees applied to cancel the notice. The Queen's Bench Division cancelled the notice as the basis of the notice was a money claim, namely for the introduction fee. Such a claim was not a proprietary claim and the notice had to be vacated pursuant to para 2 of Sch 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Negligence – Damage. The claimant suffered a severe head injury as a result of a collision between his motorcycle and a tractor and trailer driven by the first defendant. He brought a claim for personal injuries and damages. On a trial of liability only, the court found that the collision had been caused by the first defendant's negligence, for which the claimant had been two-thirds contributorily negligent. 

Libel and slander – Statement in open court. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal by the defendant Associated Newspapers against an order giving the claimant author permission to read a unilateral statement in open court following her acceptance of an offer of amends, under s 2 of the Defamation Act 1996. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant brought a claim for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss arising from the performance of a medical diagnostic procedure, an angiogram, by a hospital for which the defendant had responsibility for the medical and surgical services at the hospital. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants case on the basis that she had been adequately informed and had not withdrawn her consent. 

Dentist – Disciplinary proceedings. The Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) of the defendant General Dental Council found the appellant dentist guilty of dishonesty and other allegations, and suspended her for a year. The appellant appealed against the finding of dishonesty and the sanction. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, in the light of the PCC's findings, it had simply been impossible for it to have correctly concluded that it had been more likely than not that the appellant had realised that what she had been doing had been, by the standards of ordinary and honest dentists, dishonest.