Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Zitro IP Sàrl, for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP Sàrl and Gamepoint BV regarding the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'SPIN BINGO' as a Community trade mark. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Care orders were made in relation to two children, who were to live with their mother and have limited supervised contact with their father. The father appealed against the judge's order, challenging, among other things, the judge's treatment of the evidence of a clinical psychologist, G, which it was said to have been allowed to assume disproportionate importance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal. It held that, among other things, the judge had produced a most thorough judgment, drawing together all the strands of the evidence. From it, it was quite clear that her decision had not been based upon an unquestioning acceptance of G's evidence, whether as to physical risk or as to emotional considerations. 

Criminal Law – Trial. The defendant contended that his plea of guilty had been obtained through improper pressure following a proposal by the prosecution to drop proceedings against two of his co-defendants, including his partner who was the mother of his two young children. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the plea had not been improperly induced and an application to vacate the plea had been rightly refused. 

Company – Restoration to register. The claimant sought to bring a claim against a company that had been dissolved. He applied for the restoration of the company to the register of companies, pursuant to s 1032 of the Companies Act 2006. He also sought directions to preserve his position against any argument that his claim was statute-barred on account of an earlier date of relevant knowledge. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, justice required that the directions be made. 

Shipping – Charterparty. A charterparty contained an 'in-transit loss' clause (ITL clause) and a further clause, providing that the respondent owners were entitled to the protection of the relevant articles of the Hague-Visby Rules in respect of 'any claim' made under the charterparty. En route, pirates took control of the vessel and some cargo was lost. The appellant charterer contended that the owner was liable under the ITL clause. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the words 'in-transit loss' connoted loss 'incidental to the carriage of the cargo'. Further, even if the ITL clause had had the meaning for which the charterer contended, the Rules would apply to exempt the owner from liability. 

Child – Care. There were before the court two applications from the local authority for a care order in relation to a little boy, A, who was born on 11 January 2014, and for a placement order. The father put himself forward as a sole carer of A. The Family Court held that the local authority's case was a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations and flowing from that the local authority was to willing to believe the worst of the father. Both applications were dismissed. 

Environment – Waste. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for depositing controlled waste without a permit, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in circumstances where the judge's direction in summing as to the meaning of 'waste' had been defective. 

Contract – Construction. The parties had referred a contractual dispute to adjudication which had led to an award being made against the defendant. The claimant requested rectification of the award on the basis of a clerical mistake. The defendant did not pay the full amount of the revised award, but paid the lesser sum awarded under the first adjudicator's decision. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant's application for summary judgment as the claimant had correctly initiated an operative request for amendment of the award, which had been actioned within the specified time, in accordance with the relevant contractual provision. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant, a disabled man, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's consultation on its proposal to cut its adult social care budget. He contended that the authority had failed to provide adequate information on whether there were alternatives to the authority's proposal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in the present case, fairness had not required consultation upon arguable yet discarded alternative options. 

Practice – Appeal. In County Court proceedings, the defendant was unsuccessful. He appealed seeking to admit fresh evidence on appeal. He had previously tried to adduce that evidence prior to judgement being given in the county Court but the judge had refused the application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the application on the basis that the case was not one of those typical cases in which the evidence had come to light after the proceedings had been concluded indicating that the trial court had been deliberately misled.