Latest Cases

Contract – Condition. The claimant was employed by the defendant football club until he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on the basis of breach of an implied term of his contract. He brought a claim in damages for unpaid wages and benefits for his notice period. The Queen's Bench Dismissed the claim on the basis that the behaviour in question had amounted to gross misconduct for which the defendant was entitled to dismiss him. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Kenzo Tsujimoto for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) relating to his application for registration of the word mark 'KENZO' as a Community trade mark. In dismissing the appeal, the General Court ruled that there was a risk that the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of the reputation of an earlier 'KENZO' mark. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed an action by Blackrock, Inc. for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to the application by Blackrock for registration of a word sign 'INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed an action brought by Pro-Aqua International GmbH seeking an annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to the registration by Rexair LLC of a word mark 'WET DUST CAN'T FLY' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Conservation area. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to designate an area as a conservation area, including the claimant's public house. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the minimum standards for a proper consultation had not been met and the officer's report recommending designation had been misleading because it had not notified the leader of the council of relevant matters. 

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. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The present case raised a number of issues about the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and in particular the amendments that were introduced into the 2005 Act by the Mental Health Act 2007 concerning the procedures to be followed in cases of deprivation of liberty in relation to a patient AJ. The Queen's Bench Division concluded that overall, the steps taken by the local authority in the case to ensure that AJ's challenge to the deprivation of her liberty was brought before the court had been inadequate.