Latest Cases

Valuation – Hereditament. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) determined that the hereditament in issue, namely, a floor in an office building, would be entered in the local non-domestic rating list at a rateable value of £1. The Court of Appeal allowed the valuation officer's appeal. The valuation officer had to begin by asking whether the hereditament in its actual state was in a condition such as to make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant who would be likely to take it. The assumption required by para 2(1)(b) of Sch 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 required it to be assumed that the hereditament was in a state of reasonable repair, unless the repairs were uneconomic. 'Repairs' could only mean repairs as traditionally understood in the law of landlord and tenant. On the material date, the hereditament had been 'an office suite in disrepair', the works in question could fairly be described as repairs and it was not uneconomic to reinstate the building. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infocit - Prestacao de Servicos, Comercio Geral e Industria, Lda (Infocit), 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 Infocit and DIN - Deutsches Institut fur Normung eV, concerning the application by Infocit for registration of the word sign 'DINKOOL' as a Community trade mark. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The pursuer had been seriously injured by a car when crossing the road. Her contributory negligence had been assessed at 90%. On appeal, her contributory negligence had been reduced to 70%. The Supreme Court held that the parties had been equally responsible for the damage suffered by the pursuer. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and 50% of the agreed damages would be awarded to the pursuer. 

Employment – Practice and procedure. The employee and his colleague (the co-claimant) alleged unfair dismissal against their employer. The claims were dismissed. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application for an extension of the time to present his notice of appeal, in circumstances where he had not included the ET1 and ET3 forms of the co-claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, ruled that the time limited by r 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, started to run when an employment tribunal sent out a judgment and written reasons even though it had been wrongly addressed. Further, where two cases involving two different claimants were heard together, the two cases constituted the 'proceedings' for the purposes of r 3(1) of the Rules, and even if only one claimant proposed to appeal, r 3(1)(b) required the prospective appellant to either serve the ET1 form and ET3 forms in the co-claimant's case or give an explanation for not doing so. An appeal would not be properly instituted where neither step had been taken. 

Town and country planning – Development plan. The proceedings concerned the planning core strategy adopted by the defendant local authority, which selected as its preferred option a site for the allocation of 2,000 dwellings, just over 1km away from a special protection area. The judge dismissed the claimant's claim seeking to quash part of the core strategy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held, inter alia, that the judge had been right to have found that the earlier deficiencies in the strategic environmental assessment process had been cured and there had been no breach of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43 (on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) by having failed to carry out a screening assessment until December 2008. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claimant bank brought a claim in negligence against the defendant concerning non-statutory audit reports, which the defendant had provided to the Von Essen Hotels Limited Group and which the bank had relied on. The bank alleged that the defendant had owed it a duty of care in tort in relation to the contents of the reports and that it had been negligent. The Commercial Court, in allowing the defendant's application for summary judgment, held that a disclaimer in the reports took effect to negate any duty of care which could otherwise be owed by the defendant to Barclays and it was reasonable, in accordance with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Act. 

Adoption – Order. The father was 42. The mother was 41. They had four children who were all the subject of care proceedings mounted by the relevant local authority against the mother and the father. In due course, all the children were removed permanently from the parents with a view to either long-term fostering or adoption. There was before the court an application for the adoption of a child SSM. The father sought leave to oppose the application pursuant to s 47(5) Adoption and Children Act 2002. The father's application and the adoption application were to be one rolled-up hearing. The Family Division held that the sole question was whether it was in SSM's best interests that an adoption order be made. The father's application would be dismissed. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Compagnie des montre Longines, Francillon SA (CML), against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between CML and Xiuxiu Cheng, concerning the application by the latter company for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign represented in black and white depicting extended wings. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse them leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidential requirements in para 41-SD(c)(iii) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules could not be said to go beyond that which the Secretary of State might legitimately require for the purpose of showing that a business was genuine, and that the person conducting it and seeking entrepreneur status on the basis of having done so, was genuinely linked to that business. Accordingly, the claimant's challenge to the rationality of the requirement had to fail. 

Anonymity – Court proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, although each application would have to be considered individually, a limited derogation from the principle of open justice would normally be necessary in relation to hearings to approve a settlement of a claim made by a child or protected party, to enable the court to do justice to the claimant and his family, by ensuring respect for their family and private lives. An anonymity order seemed to provide a reasonable degree of protection both against an unwarranted invasion of privacy and an interference with the right to family life, and against such other risks as there might be, whether of dissipation of assets or otherwise. Unless satisfied, after hearing argument, that it was not necessary to do so, the judge should make an anonymity order for the protection of the claimant and their family.