Latest Cases

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 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. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled on the application by DSG Retail Ltd and its parent company for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction proceedings brought under s 47A of the Competition Act 1998. The tribunal decided that permission would be refused for service of the claim as presently pleaded alleging infringing acts by the defendants after a certain date, but was otherwise granted on the basis that the pleadings were amended in accordance with the present ruling. 

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. 

Practice – Hearing. The present judgment was necessitated by a disagreement as to the terms of the order which properly reflected the Divisional Court's previous open and closed judgments (see [2015] All ER (D) 193 (Mar)). The court specified the terms of the declaration that properly reflected the court's judgment. Further, it held that there would be no order for costs, save for assessment of the publicly funded costs of the legally aided interested parties. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Given that, in the majority of cases in extradition proceedings under Pt 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, defendants sought to rely on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to resist extradition to other states within the European Union, the Divisional Court gave guidance on the approach that should be taken at the extradition hearing by a district judge and the proper approach on an appeal. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee alleged against her former employer that she had not been paid the same as a male colleague. The employment tribunal upheld the employer's genuine material factor defence and dismissed the employee's equal pay claim and claims of sex discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that no error of law had been shown. On the facts and on limitation grounds, the sex discrimination claim failed. Further, the tribunal had made permissible findings on the facts in dismissing the constructive unfair dismissal claim. 

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. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following settlement of a personal injury claim, an issue arose as to whether the conditional fee agreement that had been entered into between the claimant and her solicitors had been enforceable as between them, which in turn affected the recoverability of the claimant's costs from the defendant. The district judge had found that there had been no agreement in place because there had been no intention to create legal relations. That was overturned by a second judge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. There had, on the facts, been a legally binding agreement that had been entered into at the claimant's home and the requirements of reg 5 of the Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2013/3134, had been met. The CFA had not been enforceable against the claimant and the defendant was not liable for the costs charged under it.