Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court allowed the claimants' application to amend a claim form and particulars of claim, pursuant to CPR 17.1(3) and 19.4(1), but refused permission to serve it on proposed defendants outside the jurisdiction and refused a proprietary injunction which had been sought by the claimants. 

Education – Higher education. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education's decision, affirming the termination of her medical studies. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that it had been open to the defendant to look critically at the assertion that the decision had been immune from review as an academic judgment and to consider the university's failure to take relevant matters into account. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion against the Lord Ordinary's dismissal of a judicial review petition seeking reduction of a decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing the petitioner leave to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal, the court held that the petitioner had failed to identify either an important point of principle or practice that the proposed appeal would raise, or some other compelling reason justifying interference with the decision to refuse to grant permission to appeal. 

Contract – Construction. The claimants undertook some work in respect of a proposed site for a hotel in Germany, which the defendant sought to acquire and develop. After a period of negotiation, the parties agreed that the claimants would be paid €150,000, plus VAT. The claimants brought proceedings in respect of the agreement and the question was whether, on its true construction, it was an agreement to pay for services rendered in the past or only if further work was done. The judge awarded the claimants the agreed sum, holding that no further performance was required. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, it was not possible to reach a different conclusion from the judge on the essential findings of fact. 

Arbitration – Award. Following the making of an arbitration award against it, the claimant company, A, sought to have to award set aside, on the ground that the tribunal that had made it had lacked jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed the application, holding that there was nothing in A's submissions to justify setting the award aside. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning art 7(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts). The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Baczo and another and the Raiffeisen Bank Zrt concerning an application for a declaration of invalidity of a mortgage loan contract and of the arbitration clause contained in that contract. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the action by Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Environmental) 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 Societe Elmar Wolf and Environmental concerning the application by Environmental for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Chancery Division considered a dispute relating to trade marks used in respect of pet food. The claimant company alleged that the defendant company had, among other things, infringed its trade marks. The court held that, on the evidence, a number of the marks had been invalidly registered. However, the defendant had not infringed the marks, and no passing off had occurred. 

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant appealed against the decision of the respondent General Pharmaceutical Council's Fitness to Practice Committee (the Committee) to remove his name from the register. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it could not be said that the Committee's chairman had been wrong to conclude that a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there had been a real possibility that the chairman had been biased and to rule that he should not recuse himself. Further, there was no identifiable error of law with respect to the sanction imposed. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company owned the patent for a drug. In earlier proceeding, its application for an interim injunction was dismissed on the basis that its infringement claim did not raise a serious issue to be tried. The defendants applied for the claim to be struck out or for summary judgment dismissing the claim. The Patents Court held that the proper course was to establish the facts at a trial before attempting definitively to determine the law in respect of subjective intention in respect of the patent in question. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the claim was not appropriate.