Latest Cases

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. 

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 by the latter company of a figurative sign depicting the word '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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Employment – Contract of service. The claimant had been a rector at the defendant's diocese. He had issued claims in the employment tribunal which raised the preliminary questions of whether he was either an employee for the purpose of s 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or a worker for the purpose of s 43K(1). The tribunal found that he was neither, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed his appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Bishop's appeal and found that the tribunal had determined the issue of whether there had been an employment contract, it had correctly found that there had not been and nor had the claimant satisfied the definition of worker. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Administrative Court held that, although a person the subject of a confiscation order was entitled to know the balance outstanding, that information had already been supplied to the defendant. The application was, in reality, an attempt to challenge the figure outstanding and to argue about the enforcement receiver's remuneration. Further, realised sums were not to be paid towards the confiscation order before paying the receiver's remuneration and, whilst it was likely to be appropriate to order the proper assessment of the receiver's remuneration, the present application was premature. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to grant him leave as a Tier 4 (General) student migrant, after his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) against a prior decision had been allowed. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision to defer consideration of the claimant's application for 60 days had been an entirely reasonable response to the FTT's decision. Her further grant of 60 days' discretionary leave outside the Immigration Rules on an exceptional basis added weight to the view that the Secretary of State had acted reasonably. 

Patent – Practice. The claimant company, TT, was the proprietor of a patent for a ticketing system. It entered into a dispute with the defendant company, BB, as to whether BB needed to use its ticketing system and intimating patent infringement proceedings. BB sought pre-action disclosure of information from TT, including the prices of licensing its system to its various customers. TT resisted the application. The Patents Court held that the rules in CPR 31.16(3) were satisfied and that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion with regard to licences issued by TT in the transport sector.