Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. Two applications were heard together because they contained some common issues, in particular, whether the inspectors appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State had omitted to consider an inspector's report into the emerging core strategy concerning the area's housing needs (the report). The Administrative Court held that, in the first claim, the report had been material and it could not be said that the decision would have been the same, such that the discretion not to quash the decision could not be exercised. However, with respect to the second claim, although the inspector had clearly been in error, it had not been one that had clearly affected the outcome. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by SKYPE Ultd, established in Ireland, 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, on the one hand, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and another company and Skype Ultd relating to the application for registration by the latter company of the word sign 'SKYPE' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermiere de Spa SA/NV (Spa) against a 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 Spa and Orly International Inc concerning the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'SPARITUAL' as a Community trade mark. 

Divorce – Costs. The wife appealed against an order of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissing her appeal in respect of her applications under the Married Women's Property Act 1887 (Jamaica) (the 1987 Act) and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1989 (Jamaica) (the 1989 Act). The Board held that the appeal under the 1887 Act would be dismissed but the appeal under the 1989 Act would be allowed and her application reheard. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss its appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of outline planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that: (i) the Secretary of State had failed to identify the nature and extent of any conflict with the neighbourhood plan; (ii) para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework applied to an emerging development plan; (iii) the Secretary of State had failed to apply his policy on prematurity; and (iv) the Secretary of State had failed to apply his policy on the weight to be given to an emerging plan. 

Immigration – Deportation. The appellant was believed to be an Algerian national but refused to provide details of his identity. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) decided that he could no longer be detained pending deportation, as there was no reasonable prospect of removing him to Algeria and he was subsequently released on bail. In allowing the appellant's application for judicial review, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that bail could not be granted, under paras 22 and 29 of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, where a person was unlawfully detained purportedly under para 2(2) of Sch 3 or where a person not currently in detention could not lawfully be detained under that provision. Further, the appellant's appeal against the decision of SIAC to strike out his appeal against the notice of intention to deport, was allowed on the ground that SIAC had failed to address his contention that revealing his identity might put his family at risk in Algeria. 

Family proceedings – Orders. In earlier care proceedings, findings of fact were made in respect of the circumstances surrounding the death of a child (P) in 2012. Family proceedings ended with the making of care orders concerning the other children of the family. Subsequently, new medical evidence emerged, a new inquest was ordered in respect of P, a serious case review was in progress and it was announced that criminal proceedings were not to be taken against either of P's parents. The father applied for the discharge of the care orders and for a contact order. The application, which amounted to an application for a rehearing, was supported by the children's guardian, but opposed by the local authority and the mother. The Family Division held that, on the facts, justice required that a further hearing should take place. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants appealed against two orders of two different masters on the basis of whether the orders properly gave permission to the defendant to amend his defence and counterclaim in the significant manner he purported to do and to withdraw admissions made in the original. The claimant contended that neither master complied with the Civil Procedure Rules in making these orders. The Queen's Bench Division held that while the masters might not have applied the rules precisely, the claimant had been treated fairly given the manner in which he had pursued his claim over the last 18 months. He was in as good a position to obtain the remedy or relief from the court he sought as he would have been had the masters approached the procedural issues differently. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar and Lidl in relation to the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'Castello' as a Community trade mark. 

Debt – Statutory demand. The claimant appealed against a decision of a district judge dismissing his application to set aside a statutory demand. The debt itself was not disputed but the claimant relied on a cross-claim which did not equal the debt but fell short of it by less than £750. The Chancery Division held that a statutory demand should not necessarily be set aside under the residual discretion in r 6.5(4)(d) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 simply because the undisputed part was less than £750. On the facts of the present case, the appropriate course was not to set aside the statutory demand under r 6.5(4)(d) of the Rules.