Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which made the continued grant of funding for higher education outside that state subject to the rule that the student applying for such funding had resided in that member state for a period of at least three out of the six years preceding his enrolment. 

Customs and excise – Duties. The Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) confirmed that a wide interpretation of 'site' should prevail for the purpose of the aggregate levy introduced by Pt 2 of the Finance Act 2001. 

Company – Director. The Privy Council held that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to the second appellant mutual fund, IAMF, for dishonestly procuring and assisting IAMF's sole director and nominated investment advisor in breaches of duty towards IAMF in entering into three transactions. Consequently IAMF was entitled to recover from the respondents the face value of the cash, loans (with accrued interest) and shares it had transferred or surrendered by those transactions. 

European Union – Trade marks. The proceedings concerned a dispute over trade mark 'PINTEREST'. The claimant used the trade mark in relation to a social networking website and to applications. The first defendant applied to register the trade mark as a Community trade mark (CTM). The claimant brought a claim in the English court for passing off against the defendants. They applied to strike out or for summary judgment dismissing two issues raised by defendants' defence, only one of which was live. The defendants applied for a stay of the proceedings pending the final determination of the CTM application. The Chancery Division held that the registration of a CTM conferred no positive right to use that mark and did not provide a defence to a claim for passing off or unfair competition. In all the circumstances, it declined to stay the English proceedings. Allowing the English proceedings to proceed would produce commercial certainty in the UK much more quickly than the claimant's opposition to the defendants' CTM application would do. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to serve a sentence of four months and 26 days' imprisonment for burglary, robbery and violent offences. By the time of the extradition hearing, the appellant had spent three months in prison. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had fallen into error by considering the matter by reference to Lithuanian practice of which she had been ignorant and not treating the appellant as having served the whole of the remaining sentence. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant lender claimed damages against the defendant valuers for negligently valuing a partly-built residential (the property). The defendant denied the claim and sought summery judgment. The Chancery Division allowed the application on the basis that the losses claimed by the claimant had been attributable to the existing indebtedness the monies advanced to the claimant and already outstanding at the time of the new loan facility and had not been caused by any negligence of the defendant in the November valuation. 

P being born in Vietnam, but having acquired British citizenship – Defendant Secretary of State making order depriving P of British citizenship. P, the applicant, had been born in Vietnam, but had acquired British citizenship. He appealed against an order made by the defendant Secretary of State, under s 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, depriving him of his British citizenship. Officials of the government of Vietnam had stated that Vietnam would not accept him as a citizen. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State's decision had not rendered P stateless and that it was appropriate to remit the remaining issues of P's appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. 

Practice – Transfer of action. The proceedings concerned an application to transfer three related actions from the Bristol District Registry of the Chancery Division to the Commercial Court in London. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that, looking at the matter overall, the subject matter of the actions was not such as to make the Commercial Court a significantly more suitable venue than the Chancery Division. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The present proceedings concerned the extent to which, following a warning notice, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) could rely on grounds that it did not mention in the warning notice, if its action was challenged. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the discretion of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) to allow TPR to rely on additional grounds was not fettered by a threshold test of 'good reason'. The exercise of the tribunal's discretion to allow TPR to raise a new case not contained in the warning notice should depend on a consideration of all the relevant factors in the case. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the action brought by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Apple and Pear) and another company against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear and Carolus C. BVBA (Carolus) concerning the application by Carolus for registration of the word sign 'English pink' as a Community trade mark.