Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Trust – Administration of trust. In the course of proceedings, the claimant companies sought two declarations. The first, which related to the status of trust monies, would be granted. The second, which concerned the status of an injunction granted by the New York courts, would not be allowed since, in the circumstances, it would be qualified to the point where it would serve no useful purpose. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant was a ten year old girl who had been taking part in a group swimming lesson when she got into difficulties and suffered serious brain injury as a result of loss of oxygen to the brain. She brought a claim in damages for negligence against the teacher in charge of her group the lifeguard and the local authority. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence, both the swim teacher and the lifeguard had been negligent and as a consequence the authority was liable for their negligence. 

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. 

Bankruptcy – Annulment. The appellant debtor appealed against an order of a deputy district judge dismissing her application for the annulment of a bankruptcy order. In her grounds of appeal, the appellant had raised a limitation defence. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the belated revelation of the second respondent's only real answer to the appellant's limitation defence after the bankruptcy order had been made, without any explanation why it had not previously been put forward, materially altered the legal landscape and was an exceptional circumstance justifying review of the validity and enforceability of the petition debt. 

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. 

Insurance – Claim. The claimants had been partly successful as defendants (IHC) in a previous action against a company in liquidation Consortium. In order to get payment in respect of a costs certificate awarded in their favour, the claimants sought pursuant to s 1 of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930, payment of the amount unexpended of the total amount of cover provided to Consortium under after the event insurance, even though Amtrust had been entitled to repudiate the ATE contract of insurance made between itself and Consortium by reason of a serious fraudulent misrepresentation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimants had failed to establish on the facts that Amtrust was estopped from relying upon that right. 

Immigration – Rules. In dismissing appeals against refusal of leave to remain in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the changes made to the Immigration Rules by HC 194 had not been applicable to applications for leave to remain made or pending at the time that the changes had been implemented, but had applied to such applications after the implementation of the subsequent statement of changes HC 565. The court considered the conflicting decisions in Edgehill v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2014] All ER (D) 14 (Apr) and Haleemudeen v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2014] All ER (D) 50 (May) and preferred the former.