Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Trust and trustee – Corporate trustee. The dispute arose out of contractual arrangements made in connection with a project for the construction of a national stadium and sporting complex in Grenada and, in particular, a facility agreement made with between the appellant, NS, and CLICO Investment Bank Ltd (CIB). The proceedings concerned the ownership of funds payable under that agreement which had been frozen pursuant to an ex parte injunction. The Privy Council set aside an order dismissing NS's notice of appeal against a declaration that the frozen fund was held on trust for NH. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant suffered a brain tumour which was removed in due course. He brought a case in negligence against the relevant professionals who had first seen him in the Accident and Emergency Department as no one assessed him as warranting an immediate CT scan until mid August 2010, some seven months after he first presented. The Queen's Bench Division failed to find a breach of duty of care in regard to any of the medical professionals in charge of the claimant bearing in mind the pressures and manner of working of an A & E department. 

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. 

Legal aid – Criminal cases. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Lord Chancellor's proposal to restrict the number of duty provider work contracts to 527. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, determined the applicable standard of review was the conventional Wednesbury standard of judicial supervision. It then held that the Lord Chancellor had properly appreciated the position as to the investment finance which would be needed for firms to improve efficiency and restructure or consolidate to meet the challenge of the new system. Further, he had adequately considered consultation responses and the claimants' argument concerning art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights was misconceived. 

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. 

Road traffic – Driving licence. The claimant 78-year-old woman sought judicial review of the defendant court's rejection of her appeal against the DVLA's revocation of her driving licence. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, in the light of a geriatric medicine specialist's evidence and absent a proper basis for rejecting it, the statutory test for revocation had not been met. The defendant had not been entitled, without more, to say that the specialist's expert medical evidence had not been indicative of the claimant's condition, as it had done. 

Criminal law – Murder. The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court allowed the respondent's appeal against his conviction for murder on the basis of an erroneous provocation direction and substituted a conviction for manslaughter. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed and the respondent cross-appealed. The Privy Council held that the judge had not fallen into the error supposed by the Court of Appeal, and the conviction for murder and sentence were restored. The respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed, as the Court of Appeal had correctly held that fresh evidence could not affect the safety of the conviction and the respondent had been aware of the inference that scissors had been planted on the deceased. 

European Union – Employment. In the course of proceedings between a Finnish trade union in the electricity sector and a company established in Poland, regarding pay claims arising out of employment relationships, the Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning, amongst other things, the interpretation of arts 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 3 of Directive (EC) 96/71 (concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services).