Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Fetim BV for 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 opposition proceedings between Fetim BV and Solid Floor Ltd, established in London, United Kingdom, concerning the application by Fetim BV for registration of a figurative sign depicting 'Solidfloor The professional's choice' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

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). 

Employment – Continuity. The employee, having brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the employer, contended that her employment had transferred to it. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that it had transferred and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal and the EAT had been correct to have concluded that the employee had constituted an 'organised grouping of employees' to whom reg 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE), applied. Therefore, a service provision change had occurred, pursuant to reg 3(1)(b)(ii) of TUPE. 

Value Added Tax – Supply of goods or services. Two sets of proceedings had concerned the repayment of VAT on management services provided to closed-end investment trusts companies, and a number of rulings had been made by the Chancery Division in respect of changes in the legislation that had affected the trusts' entitlement to reclaim VAT from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. Both the trusts and the Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeals and, in so doing, clarified the scope of s 80(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division considered a claim for clinical negligence arising from the admittedly inappropriate treatment of a patient with an unstable fracture of the spine which was initially misdiagnosed as stable. The claimant proved causation on the balance of probabilities. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve an activated suspended sentence for burglary of items valued at approximately £50. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it would not be proportionate to order the appellant's extradition. The important factors in the present case included: (i) the limited value of the items stolen; (ii) the appellant had been subjected to lengthy electronically monitored curfews; (iii) the length of his sentence and the fact that he had had no idea that the sentence had been activated; and (iv) the delay in seeking extradition. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant planning permission for a primary school and early years centre, and associated works. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the first stage of the core strategy policy, namely, whether the development proposed was acceptable under the policy, had been satisfied and properly assessed within the officer's report. With respect to the second stage, the officer's report had not significantly misled members of the planning committee, who had been familiar with the area and had been an informed readership, with respect to the policy criteria. 

Solicitor – Retainer. The claimant brought an action against the defendant firm of solicitors, alleging that the firm had failed to prepare and issue proceedings against third parties in respect of a construction dispute, or had failed to advise him to issue proceedings against those entities. The Technology and Construction Court, dismissing the claim, held that the defendant firm had not been under duty to advise the claimant to issue proceedings against any or all of the third parties.