Latest Cases

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive (EC) 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the legal protection of databases) should be interpreted as meaning that it was not applicable to a database which was not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that arts 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive did not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations on its use by third parties, without prejudice to the applicable national law. 

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. 

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 – Rectification. The claimant and another businessman sold shares in a shipping company to the defendant company. A dispute arose as to the value of the shares. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the agreement between the parties had not reflected their common intention, and an order for rectification would be made. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In divorce proceedings, the wife made an application for financial provision. One issue was whether the court could conclude that the husband's father, who was very wealthy, would come to the aid of his son and, if so, whether the present case was a 'backfill case' or one where, exceptionally, the court could order 'new money' to be provided from the husband's father. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, the husband's father would help out, but only to the minimum necessary to relieve his son from visible financial hardship. To that limited extent, the husband's father's wealth and generosity could be said to amount to a resource which the court needed to consider. The court proceeded to make various orders. 

Easement – Right of way. The proceedings concerned a neighbour dispute between the claimants and defendants, in which the judge made declarations as to the boundary of the land owned by the claimants and the land owned by the second defendant, and as to the claimants' entitlement to a vehicular right of way over a way, in so far as it was in the ownership of the second defendant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendants' appeal on the boundary issue, but dismissed it on the right of way issue. 

Child – Care. The local authority's case was that G has been subjected to FGM and that that constituted 'significant harm' within the meaning of s 31 of the Children Act 1989. The Family Court held that there was insufficient evidence of FGM but that FGM did amount to 'significant harm' for the purposes of s 31 of the Act. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had owned a painting which he had sold at auction through the defendant auction house for £42,000. The defendant had assessed the painting as being a copy of a well-known work by Caravaggio. After the sale, the buyer, who was an art scholar of great renown, declared the painting to be by Caravaggio himself. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant alleging negligence in its investigation of the painting. The Chancery Division dismissed his claim. It considered the scope of the duty of care owed by a leading auction house, as opposed to a provincial one, and concluded that the defendant had not been negligent in its assessment of the painting. 

Family provision – Property available for financial provision. The proceedings concerned preliminary questions which related to the husband and wife's respective interests in three properties. The Family Division, having considered the evidence and authority on resulting and constructive trusts, made findings as to each of the three properties. 

Telecommunications – Regulatory bodies. The claimants sought judicial review of actions taken by the defendant for breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the Code). The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant's actions had been unlawful and unfair. They had not complied with art 3 of Directive (EC) 2000/31, in particular, because the measures had been disproportionate in that they had gone beyond the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the objective of protecting customers. The claim would be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division for issues of causation and quantification of damages to be determined.