Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal against the conclusions of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) upholding the respondent entry clearance officer's refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom to join their family. It held, inter alia, that it was far from clear that the refusal of entry clearance to the appellants had constituted a serious interference with their right to a family life, under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Intermark Srl (Intermark) against the 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 The Coca-Cola Company and Intermark regarding the application by Intermark for registration of a figurative sign 'Cola' as a Community trade mark. 

Social Security – Benefit. The claimants challenged the Government's introduction of a cap on welfare benefits on the basis that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2994, which had implemented the cap, discriminated unjustifiable between men and women, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review challenge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held that, giving due weight to the assessment of the Government and Parliament, the court was not persuaded that the Regulations were incompatible with art 14 of the Convention. The Regulations pursued legitimate aims and, as the question of proportionality involved controversial issues of social and economic policy, the determination of which was pre-eminently the function of democratically elected institutions, it was necessary for the court to give due weight to the considered assessment made by those institutions. It was unnecessary for the court to decide whether the question of whether there had been a breach of art 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

Practice – Hearing. The issue for determination in the present judicial review proceedings was the extent to which the claimant Secretary of State had to provide disclosure of closed material to special advocates appointed to represent the interests of the interested parties before the defendant Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The Divisional Court required disclosure of such material as had been used by the author of any relevant assessment to found or justify the facts or conclusions expressed or, if subsequently re-analysed, disclosure should be of such material as was considered sufficient to justify those facts and conclusions, and which had been in existence at the date of decision. 

Civil procedure – Summary decree: Sheriff Court: Refusing an apppeal in an action in which a landlord enrolled a motion seeking decree that a tenant had incurred irritancy of his lease and that it was entitled to remove him from the subjects, and the sheriff granted summary decree on the basis that there was no defence to action, the court held, inter alia, that the landlord's irritancy notice was valid and that the sheriff exercised his discretion to grant summary decree in the light of the defence placed before him in a manner which gave the court no basis to interfere with his decision. 

Competition – Rules on competition. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) rejected the challenge by AXA PPP Healthcare Ltd to parts of a report by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) regarding the CMA's finding that the formation and operation of anaesthetist groups did not give rise to an adverse effect on competition for the purposes of s 134(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002. The tribunal decided, amongst other things, that the CMA had addressed the question it had been obliged to determine under that provision, namely whether it could positively find that an AEC had existed. It had said that, on the material before it, it had not found that to be the case: an answer it had been lawfully entitled to give. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Naazneen Investments Ltd (Nazneen) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to revocation proceedings between Energy Brands, Inc. and Naazneen regarding the registration by Nazneen's predecessor of the word mark 'SMART WATER' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice, handed down new Criminal Practice Directions, to take effect from 6 April 2015. The Practice Direction adds new Practice Directions at CPD I General Matters 3L, CPD I General Matters 3M, CPD II Preliminary Proceedings 16C and includes two new annexes to CPD XIII. 

Criminal law and evidence – Threatening or abusive behaviour. Sheriff Court: In a case in which the accused ('the minuter') challenged the relevancy of two charges of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner and the admissibility of evidence in support of those charges, the court repelled the relevancy plea, holding that for the purposes of s 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act actual fear and alarm suffered by someone present did not have to be demonstrated, but it sustained the minute in relation to the admissibility of evidence, concluding that it would be unfair to admit the evidence of the witnesses the Crown intended to lead in support of the charges. 

Adoption – Payment for adoption. The applicants had paid a surrogate mother, T, to have a child for them. They submitted that the court should dispense with the need for T to be served with a parental order, as they had taken reasonable steps to try to locate her. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, the requirement for service on T would be dispensed with, and that certain payments made to T and the surrogacy clinic would be authorised.