Latest Cases

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant had been the long-term partner of the deceased, who was a member of the armed forces. She appealed in respect of a decision that, as she had been still married to her husband, from whom she had separated, she was not eligible for benefits under the armed forces pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the claimant and the deceased had, on the date of his death, been prevented from marrying, within the meaning of the scheme's rules, by virtue of the claimant's subsisting marriage and there had been no unlawful discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant Bangladeshi national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), refusing permission to seek judicial review of the decision of the respondent Secretary of State, refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, even if the Secretary of State had made an error of law, it had not been a material one, because, on the basis of the best possible way in which the appellant's case could have been considered, it had been bound to fail. 

European Union – Trade mark. The general Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (Royal County), established in the United Kingdom, 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 Lifestyle Equities CV and Royal County, concerning the application by Royal County for registration of a figurative sign depicting a polo player and the words: 'Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd' as a Community trade mark. 

Passing off – Descriptive name. B, who held a single share in the defendant company, Poleplus, registered domain names referring to the claimant company, which manufactured a similar product to that produced by Poleplus. In an earlier judgment, it was held that registration of the domain names had constituted passing off, including the creation of instruments of fraud. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that, on the evidence, Poleplus was jointly liable with B, as it had been vicariously liable for B's acts, and the registrations had been done by B while acting as its agent. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 3(2) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation extending the exclusive right of the broadcasting organisations referred to in art 3(2)(d) as regards acts of communication to the public which broadcasts of sporting fixtures made live on internet, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, could constitute, provided that such an extension did not undermine the protection of copyright. 

Criminal law – Murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the defendant's conviction for murder in circumstances where the jury could not have safely excluded the possibility that the victim's death had been an accident. 

Damages – Personal injury. The deceased died of a subarachnoid haemorrhage as a result of admitted negligence on the part of the defendant Trust. The defendant settled claims brought by her dependants and by her husband for nervous shock The claimant was the deceased's sister. She brought a claim as a secondary victim on the basis that she experienced nervous shock as a result of the events that transpired. The Queen's Bench Division found that in the circumstances, the sight of the deceased could not be regarded as a 'horrifying event'; nor was it sudden or unexpected. There was a series of different events that gave rise to an accumulation during that period of gradual assaults on the claimant's mind and resulted in her psychiatric illness. 

European Union – Insurance. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 2 of the Third Council Directive (EEC) (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a premium which varied according to whether the insured vehicle was to be used only in the territory of the member state in which that vehicle was normally based or in the entire territory of the European Union did not fall within the concept of 'single premium', within the meaning of that article. 

Limitation of actions – Prescription. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers, who had instructed the defenders, a firm of solicitors, to serve notices to quit on a tenant to terminate agricultural holdings tenancies over three fields, averred that by serving defective notices to quit the defenders were in breach of an implied term of their contract with the pursuers to exercise the degree of knowledge, skill and care expected of a reasonably competent solicitor, the court sustained the defenders' plea-in-law that any obligation on the defenders to make reparation to the pursuers had prescribed and pronounced decree of absolvitor. 

Data protection – Processing of information. Google had sought, to set aside the permission that had been granted to the claimants to serve their claim form out of the jurisdiction in their action which alleged misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). The action for breach of confidence was set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Google's appeal as the pleaded actions were clearly arguable and not pointless. The court held that misuse of private information should be recognised as a tort for the purposes of service out of the jurisdiction and that, in order to make s 13(2) of the DPA compatible with EU law, that section had to be disapplied, with the consequence that compensation would be recoverable under s 13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of the requirements of the DPA.