Latest Cases

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. 

Limitation of actions – Prescription. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sued for outstanding fees for management services provided in respect of the defender's flat, the court held that the short negative prescription applied to the sum sued for, that no relevant claim was made interrupting the 5‑year period until service of the initial writ on 15 April 2011, but that the defender was to be taken to have made a relevant acknowledgement by making payment of £14 on 27 November 2010. On that basis it was agreed that the sum due was £3,620 (liability to pay to the extent of £6,157 having prescribed). 

Solicitor – Contract. The claimant firm of solicitors brought a claim against the defendant for unpaid fees for work done on her behalf in matrimonial proceedings. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, professional negligence by the claimant. The claimant sought summary judgment on its claim and a dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim. The Chancery Division granted summary judgment in favour of the claimant where the defendant's defences to the claims had no real prospect of success. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed. 

Income tax – Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the application by a taxpayer for judicial review of a decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners not to allow his claim for repayment of overpaid tax on the basis that the taxpayer's return had been received after the expiry of the four-year time limit imposed by s 34(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970. The tribunal decided that, in line with existing authority, the time limit in that sub-section had no application to a self-assessment made by a taxpayer. Accordingly, the Revenue was ordered to process the taxpayer's tax return including the self-assessment in respect of the relevant year. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The husband and wife had been married for 40 years. The husband had been very successful in business but latterly had developed problems with addiction. The wife issued divorce proceedings and applied for financial remedies with her divorce petition. The Family Division made an order in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties. 

Legal aid – Criminal cases. The claimants appealed against the Divisional Court's decision, dismissing their application for judicial review of the defendant Lord Chancellor's decision to introduce a tendering process for 527 contracts for solicitors to provide duty provider work (DPW). They contended that the Lord Chancellor had erred in failing to consider costs which would have to be incurred by providers in restructuring their affairs to put themselves in a position to bid for and implement the proposed contracts. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, for reasons which, in substance, reflected the judgment of the Divisional Court, dismissed the appeal. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants alleged that the defendant, B, had appropriated money whilst in public office in Djibouti. They obtained freezing injunctions, among other things, against him. In the course of obtaining the injunctions, a solicitor working for the claimants misled the court. B applied to have the injunctions dismissed. The Commercial Court held that, in the circumstances, the freezing injunctions would be dismissed, although a proprietary injunction would remain. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The proceedings concerned an application by the wife for financial remedy orders against the husband, in circumstances where the husband had brought into the relationship and marriage substantial wealth. The Family Division found that sharing the matrimonial property equally would be insufficient to meet the wife's needs. It then proceeded to consider the wife's needs and awarded her a lump sum of £5.6m which, in all the circumstances, was held to be fair to both parties. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority challenged a decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State to allow an appeal against its decision, refusing permission for development of 150 houses on land lying outside the boundaries of the Cotswold area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not erred in equating valued landscape with designated landscape and had not adopted an unlawful approach to the meaning of valued. Further, the policy was not intended to cover views of the AONB from outside the AONB. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The wife's application for enforcement of child maintenance and an upward variation of the same had been struck out by the district judge as it had offended the principle of res judicata and/or that it had represented an abuse of the process of the court under Pt 4 of the FPR. The basis for that conclusion was that she had previously sought to enforce child maintenance in the courts of Illinois. The Family Division allowed the wife's appeal. The judge in Illinois had unintentionally reduced the value of the maintenance order and that had been outside his jurisdiction or remit. In all the circumstances, it was a truly exceptional case and justice would not be served by allowing the district judge's order to stand. Further, the issue of variation had not been addressed in Illinois. The district judge had erred and it was difficult to see how the wife's application could fairly have been struck out.