Latest Cases

Copyright – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held that the defendants were jointly liable for infringing the claimant's copyright in its 'Red Berry design' by the importation into the United Kingdom of Blossom ceramics and the sale of those products. The claimant was entitled to damages and interest. 

Power of attorney – Enduring power of attorney. The Court of Protection reconsidered two orders it had made on the papers. The first was an order revoking HS's enduring power of attorney, in which she had appointed her former partner to be her attorney, and the second was an order appointing the local authority to be HS's deputy for property and affairs. The court held that, in the circumstances, the appointment of the local authority as deputy had been inapt and the appointment of a panel deputy would be completely disproportionate. An order was made appointing HS's son to be his mother's deputy, in place of the authority. 

Elections – Local government. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against sentence for making a false statement as to his qualification to be elected as a candidate in the Enfield Borough Council elections, contrary to s 65A(1A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and rejected his contention that insufficient weight had been given to his mental health when sentencing. 

Citizenship – United Kingdom citizenship. The claim raised the important issue of whether the defendant Secretary of State could refuse a child's application for British nationality where the child met all the requirements, but as a result of destitution, could not pay the required fee. The Administrative Court held that, in refusing the claimant's application, the Secretary of State had not acted outside her powers. Further, she had not breached her duty, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to respect family and private life or her duty, under art 14, read with art 8, of the Convention, by discriminating on the ground of impecuniosity. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant, Thai airlines, claimed damages for breach of three contracts made with the defendant for the supply economy class seats for three groups of aircraft. The seats had not been delivered and, among other things, the claimant had sought to mitigate its losses and had allegedly incurred costs, among other things, of just under US$162m by leasing aircraft from another company. The defendant admitted liability, but, on the question of quantum, contended that account should be taken of the benefits the claimant had gained from leasing the aircraft and other mitigating steps it had taken. The Commercial Court held that, in assessing damages for breach of contract, credit had to be given for any monetary benefit, whether chosen or not, which the claimant had received or would receive as a result of an action reasonably taken to mitigate its loss. It ruled, among other things, that the claimant was entitled to recover the lease costs in the sum of US$107m. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Petropars Iran Co and other companies for annulment of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as those acts concerned them. 

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant, a British citizen, brought a claim for personal injuries in respect of an accident that occurred whilst working in Antwerp. The claim against the first defendant employer was brought in breach of statutory duty and negligence. The fourth and fifth defendants were the main contractors responsible for the project and comprising a joint venture under Belgian law. Those defendants were domiciled in Belgium (the Belgian defendants). The Belgian defendants sought a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction over them in relation to the claim The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim on the basis of Regulation 44/2001. 

Land – Owner. The parties, who were five brothers, owned a number of properties and businesses. A dispute arose as to the ownership of the property and businesses. The Chancery Division held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimant brothers' submission that the family had agreed to work together in business and build up assets in common, rather than the defendant brother's contention that each property and business was beneficially owned by the brother who was its registered owner. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. MC executed a lasting power of attorney for property and affairs (the LPA), in which she appointed her daughter (SR) and her son (NC) jointly and severally to be her attorneys. The Public Guardian applied for orders for the revocation and cancellation of the LPA and directing that the local authority be invited to apply for appointment as deputy. The Court of Protection held that, whilst SR had unquestionably behaved in a way that had contravened her authority and was not in MC's best interests, NC had not behaved or proposed to behave in such a way. Accordingly, there were no grounds on which his appointment could be revoked. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. The proceedings concerned a lasting power of attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs, in which EL had appointed her two children as her attorneys. On the application of the Public Guardian, the Court of Protection made an order revoking the LPA and inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as EL's deputy for property and affairs, in circumstances where it had found, inter alia, that the LPA was not functioning satisfactorily because of the corrosive effect of the animosity between the attorneys, that the attorneys had behaved in a way that was not in EL's best interests and that EL lacked the capacity to revoke the LPA.