Latest Cases

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Aic SA (Aic) against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic concerning a Community design owned and registered by Aic intended to be applied to 'Heat exchangers'. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant agreed to grant a lease of a hotel to the first defendant, Travelodge, on the understanding that Travelodge would carry out refurbishment work at the hotel. The Travelodge Group later entered into a company voluntary agreement (CVA), under which the rent for the hotel was reduced. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants claiming, inter alia, that the work had not been fully or properly carried out and seeking damages for loss of rent following the making of the CVA. The first defendant sought summary judgment against the claimant. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed Travelodge's application for summary judgment on the whole claim, but held that claims which were excluded by the terms of the CVA would be struck out. 

Housing – Homeless person. The local authority had refused a resident's application for housing on the basis that she was not homeless as, while she had suffered obvious emotional and other upset, her neighbour's misbehaviour and harassment fell short of actual violence or threats of violence that were likely to be carried out and it would not be unreasonable for her to continue to occupy the property in which she lived. The county court judge quashed the authority's decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the phrase 'other violence' in s 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 covered not only physical violence (actual or threatened) but other threatening or intimidating behaviour or abuse, if of such seriousness that it might give rise to psychological harm. The authority's appeal was dismissed with the result that it had to reconsider its decision. 

Criminal law – Child sex offences. The first offender, B, was convicted of child cruelty and other sexual offences, including rape, in respect of his step-daughter. His partner, H, the girl's mother, was found to have been involved in all of the B's offending by allowing, encouraging and turning a blind eye to B's activities. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed applications by the Attorney General pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and held that sentences of 12 years and five and-a-half years' imprisonment, respectively, had been unduly lenient and substituted sentences of 24 years and eight years' imprisonment. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the provisions of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council (on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families), viewed also in the light of art 59 of the Additional Protocol, should be interpreted as meaning that nationals of a member state who had been duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that member state as Turkish workers could not, on the ground that they had retained Turkish nationality, rely on art 6 of Decision 3/80 to object to a residence requirement provided for by the legislation of that member state in order to receive a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of art 4(2) of Regulation 1408/71, as amended. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant brought proceedings alleging copying of its training manual used by those who taught techniques for physical restraint. It alleged that the first defendant had infringed certain copyright works by reason of the creation of its own manual. The alleged copyright works included photographs, literary and dramatic works. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held, inter alia, that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not at any stage been granted a licence to copy any of the photographs and, whenever it had done so, it had infringed the claimant's copyright. However, the claimant's case regarding literary and dramatic works failed. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant, an arborist, hired a platform from the defendant in order to fell a tree. The platform collapsed and the claimant sustained serious injury. The claimant brought a claim in, inter alia, contract. The Queen's Bench Division upheld the claim and ordered judgment for the claimant with damages to be assessed. 

Firearms – Possession. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction for possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to s 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, held, among other things, that the judge had been plainly right to find that there was a case to answer. 

Criminal law – Fitness to plead. Two separate appeals were heard together because they raised similar issues concerning defendants who had been found unfit to plead. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, where a defendant's disability impacted on his ability to take part in a trial, but he was not otherwise affected by a psychiatric condition such as rendered what was said in interview unreliable, there was no reason why the jury should not hear it, albeit with an appropriate warning. The finding in each case was safe and the appeals were dismissed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Following an appeal by three former servicemen who had been injured in service, the Queen's Bench Division, having regard to the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, held that the fixed success fee regime in (pre 1 April 2013) CPR 45, s IV did not apply to claims brought by members of the armed forces in respect of injuries suffered at work.