Latest Cases

Trade mark – Distinctiveness. The Chancery Division considered the appellant company's appeal against the findings of a hearing officer in a dispute regarding trade marks used by the appellant for whisky-related products. The court held that the hearing officer had erred and reconsidered the likelihood of confusion with regard to a word mark and a logo mark. It held that, among other things, neither mark was likely to cause confusion. 

Limitation of action – Negligence. The claimant had retained the defendant firm of solicitors and barrister in respect of a clinical negligence claim. They advised her that she did not have a viable claim. Consequently, she did not pursue the action. She was subsequently advised that her claim had been viable and so she issued proceedings alleging professional negligence. The claim was dismissed on grounds of liability and as being statute barred. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal, but differed from the judge in finding that she had had constructive, not actual, knowledge that she had had a viable claim against the lawyers. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimants brought a claim for damages in defamation against the defendant following a broadcast on television. The defendant defended the claim. The claimant applied to either strike out the defence or for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division found that the defence was incoherent and failed to disclose any reasonable basis for defending the claim. Accordingly, the summary judgment application was allowed. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a Zimbabwean national, whose appeal against the refusal of his application to have a deportation order revoked was dismissed by the First Tier Tribunal, and who sought reduction of the Upper Tribunal's decision refusing him permission to appeal, the court rejected arguments that there had been a collapse of fair procedure and that the consequences for the petitioner if he was returned to Zimbabwe would be drastic, and held that the test in Eba v Advocate General for Scotland was not satisfied. 

Practice – Amendment. The claimant had brought proceedings in 2008 against the defendants. In 2010, the court had given judgment in the defendants' favour. In the present proceedings, the claimant contended that the 2010 judgment had been acquired as a result of fraud on the part of the defendants and sought permission to amend her particulars of claim to include a claim for damages for conspiracy/deceit. The Chancery Division held that the new claim was not an abuse of process, but that permission for the proposed amendments would not be granted as they included allegations not arising from the same or substantially the same facts as the claim itself. 

Personal injury – Liability – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by a motorcyclist who underwent a below-knee left leg amputation after he collided in darkness with a milk tanker which was reversing into a farm road and blocking the road on which he was travelling, the court concluded that the accident was caused partly by the fault of the pursuer and partly by the fault of the defenders, that the proportion of blame attributable to the pursuer fell to be assessed at 40%, and that damages for the cost of prosthetics must be calculated in accordance with the defenders' expert's recommendations. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The respondent Secretary of State refused the first and third appellants' applications for leave to remain under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of leave to remain outside the Rules, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused to grant them permission to seek judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeals. In so doing, it considered, inter alia, the nature and application of the phrase 'insurmountable obstacles', as used in para EX.1 of Appendix FM to the Rules. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant, a member of the Moroccan royal family, brought proceedings against the defendant publisher regarding an article on its website. He submitted that the article had alleged that he had entered into a conspiracy to sabotage the image of the King of Morocco. The Queen's Bench Division held that the article had only been capable of bearing one of the three defamatory meanings pleaded. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant broke his neck and was attended to by an ambulance crew, for whose actions the defendant was legally responsible. The assessment by the paramedic was negligent and it was only after he arrived at hospital that the correct diagnosis was made. The central issue to be determined was whether the admitted failure to immobilise the claimant's neck was responsible for at least part of his residual disability. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence, that there was evidence of both manhandling and deterioration in the case sufficiently compelling to support the conclusion that the manhandling was responsible for the deterioration. The claim therefore had to be quantified with reference to the 'but for' assessments of comparative function. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant to the interested party of planning permission to remove conditions of a planning permission, which limited the use of eight buildings to holiday lets. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, whilst there was no express finding of conflict with the development plan in the officers' report, the officers' approach, which had been to examine the impacts of the development proposed, could not be said to have significantly misled the members. Further, the committee had been aware of all material considerations.