Latest Cases

Immigration – Workers. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to revoke its Tier 2 sponsor licence and to maintain that revocation. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been justified in concluding that the claimant's response to her request for information addressing identified issues had been deficient and why the presaged revocation of licence would go ahead. Further, her decision had not been irrational, and given the litany and seriousness of the claimant's various breaches, immediate termination had been obvious and axiomatic. 

Contract – Terms. The claimant, a major European executive air charter operation, had provided aircraft management services to the defendant. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of an aircraft management and charter agreement between the claimant and the defendant, the claimant was entitled to judgment for the amount of charter incentive payments to which it had claimed to be entitled. The defendant was entitled to set off some, but not all, of the sums claimed from outstanding invoices in respect of management fees and operating costs. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (easyGroup) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup concerning the application by easyGroup to register a figurative sign depicting the words 'easyAir-tours' as a Community trade mark. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The proceedings concerned a voyage charterparty made on the BEEPEEVOY 3 form. Clause 17 of the charterparty made provision for a laycan period. Clause 24 of the charterparty gave the charterers, after any load or discharge port or place had been nominated, a liberty to vary such port or place. While the vessel was on its way to the first load port, the charterers cancelled the charterparty. A dispute arose as to whether the charterers had a right to cancel. The tribunal found for the owners. The Commercial Court dismissed the charterers' appeal, and held that the tribunal had not erred in reaching the conclusion that it had done. 

Freedom of information – Request. Two appeals were heard together as they concerned common issues regarding s 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In the second appeal, issues arose regarding requests for information made under reg 12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI 2004/331. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the meaning of 'vexatious' and 'manifestly unreasonable' and whether past requests could be taken into account in considering whether a fresh request was vexatious. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant suffered from locked in syndrome following a stroke and brought a claim against the defendants in clinical negligence. The defendants admitted breaches of duty but denied causation. The Queen's Bench Division found in favour of the defendants on the issue of causation. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Ferring BV against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Martet (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring BV and Kora Corp. Ltd (Kora) regarding the application by Kora for registration of the word sign 'Koragel' as a Community word mark. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority brought an application in respect of two children with the same mother, that the children should be made subject to care orders with the long term foster care for each. The mother sought the return of both her children but especially G. The Family Court held that the evidence was that her needs could be best met in long term foster care, suitably supported by a comprehensive care plan. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant had paid £50,000 to a company run by the first defendant, intending to invest in the company in return for shares. He brought a claim for damages for breach of contract. It was common ground that, if there was no binding contract, the claimant was entitled, as restitution, to the return of his money, together with an award for the 'time value' of the money. The Chancery Division held that the claimant had advanced £50,000 to the company in anticipation of an agreement to invest in return for shares, but he had failed to satisfy the court that any agreement had been concluded between the parties. However, the claimant had a restitutionary claim against the company for the return of his £50,000 and for the time value of the money. 

Criminal law – Costs. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant court's recovery of defence costs order (RDCO) that he pay £483,554.11 towards the costs of his legal aid. He submitted that the judge had not addressed his submission that he should not have had to pay for the costs associated a charge of which he had not been convicted, but which had been ordered to lie on the file. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the judge had simply not addressed the issue of whether it would be unreasonable to make an RDCO in respect of the costs of the count ordered to lie on the file.