Latest Cases

Criminal evidence – Character of accused. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, heard five appeals together as they each raised the same issue, namely the extent and nature of the good character direction. The court gave guidance as to the extent and nature of the good character direction. It held that, in some respects the law had taken a wrong turn, and that the court remained bound by principles it derived from R v Vye; R v Wise; R v Stephenson([1993] 3 All ER 241) and R v Aziz ([1995] 3 All ER 149). 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Iglotex SA against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Iglo Foods Group Ltd, established in the United Kingdom, and Iglotex SA, concerning the application by Iglotex SA for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'IGLOTEX' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal law – Obstructing course of justice. The offenders were convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice in circumstances where the victim, who had learning difficulties, had been persuaded to spent a twenty four hour period with two of the offenders on the day he had been due to attend court to give evidence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the sentences of between 12 and 16 months' imprisonment had not been unduly lenient. 

Company – Liquidation. A company in voluntary creditors liquidation was engaged in a construction dispute with a school. The school put in a proof of debt, which the company's liquidators had yet to approve. The school contended that an arbitration clause in the construction contract was binding and continued to apply despite the company being in liquidation. The liquidators of the company applied for directions, contending that the court had power, under r 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, in connection with the proof of debt process, to give directions as to the taking of an account of the balance due between the company and the school. The Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the arbitration clause trumped the taking of an account under the court's directions as envisaged by the Insolvency Rules. The arbitration agreement had not become inoperative following liquidation of the company. 

Practice – Striking out. The present proceedings arose from a dispute over a joint venture agreement originally made in 1981. Following attempts at arbitration and a decision by the Supreme Court, the claimant, H, brought a fresh claim. The Commercial Court allowed an application by the defendant, J, to strike out the claim, on the grounds that, in bringing the present proceedings, H had vexed J with litigation twice in circumstances that amounted to harassment of J. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of art 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person had constructed was to be the purchase price, at the time the application was made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics were similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it was irrelevant whether part of the purchase price was represented by interim interest. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of two years and two hundred days' imprisonment, in respect of two counts of theft and four counts of domestic house burglary had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where the offender had a 'truly terrible' criminal record. The sentence was substituted for one of four-a-half years' imprisonment. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal bought by Mr Anbouba by which he had requested that the Court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of various decisions and regulations made by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as his name appeared on the lists of the persons to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. SM executed Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of her daughter and grandson. The Office of Public Guardian (OPG) applied to revoke the LPA. The Court of Protection having regard to s 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, revoked the LPA and appointed a deputy panel to act as SM's deputy for property and affairs. 

Tort – Conspiracy. The claimants were three daughters of S, who had founded the first defendant company. Following reorganisations in the company, they brought proceedings, contended that two unlawful means conspiracies had been implemented to deprive them of their stake in the company. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the first conspiracy had been proven. However, the evidence did not support the existence of the alleged second conspiracy.