Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Disclosure of documents. In the course of divorce proceedings, the judge refused the appellant husband's application for a direction, addressed to the police, for a witness statement to be made available to him. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the husband's appeal, held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been entitled to have refused the order sought. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed an action brought by Metric LLC for annulment of a decision by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning the international registration by that company of the word mark 'SMARTER SCHEDULING' as a Community trade mark. 

Contempt of court – Party in contempt. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused to exercise its discretion to decline to hear an appeal by SS on the basis that he was a committed contemnor whose contempts were unpurged. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection issued proceedings, contending that their detention breached arts 3, 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court held that there had been unacceptable delay in holding the review in the second claimant's case and that had been a breach of art 5(4) of the Convention for which he would be awarded £300 damages. However, the claimants' other claims were dismissed. 

Employment – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 71(1)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a frontier worker who, immediately after the end of a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a member state, had been employed on a part-time basis by another employer in that same member state had the status of a partially unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of that provision. 

Company – Winding up. The respondent Secretary of State sought the winding-up of the appellant company, PLT, which provided a service to reduce unwanted marketing. PLT applied to vary undertakings it had previously given pending the final hearing of the petition. The judge determined as a preliminary issue that, for PLT to trade and seek new customers without disclosing that the telephone and mail preference services were provided to the public free of charge, would involve a breach of reg 6 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277. Consequently, the application failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed PLT's appeal to the extent of setting aside the determination of the preliminary issue, as it was an issue which should be determined only at the final hearing, but declined to 

Equity – Equitable interest. The appellant, K, had cohabited with her partner, N, between 1976 and his death in 2009. Between 1985 and 2009 they had lived together in a property purchased by N and registered in his sole name. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed K's appeal against a finding that she had a beneficial interest in the property limited to the extent of 25% of its value. 

European Union – Citizenship. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that Zambrano carers (see Zambrano v Office National de l'Emploi (ONEm)[2011] All ER (EC) 491), who were in need and unable to work were not entitled to the same level of assistance as was required by European Union law to be paid to EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. The UK had to pay them such amount as would enable them to support themselves in order to be the carer for the EU citizen child within the EU, but subject to that, might determine to pay social assistance to them on some different basis. 

Intellectual property – Design. The claimant clothing company brought proceedings against the defendants, alleging that they had been involved in alleged infringement in the United Kingdom unregistered design rights in the design of a pair of jeans. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the claim against the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants would succeed. 

Mental health – Patient. The issue on the appeal was whether the claimant, a mentally disordered patient, who had been unlawfully detained in the defendant NHS Trust's hospital for 442 days, was entitled to substantial damages instead of the nominal damages which had been awarded by the judge, in circumstances where he would anyway have been detained lawfully had the defendant been aware of the unlawfulness. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was clear that the claimant had sustained no loss, because he would have been lawfully detained anyway whether or not the breach had occurred and the judge had been right to have decided that the claimant was only entitled to nominal damages.