Latest Cases

Tort – Harassment. The claimants brought an action for harassment against the defendants and sought an injunction restraining them from further harassing behaviour. The Queen's Bench Division applying established law found that the claimants had made out their case for an injunction to restrain the third defendant from harassing them and the injunction would be granted in substantially the terms sought. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant and the defendants were competitors in the field of vehicle rental services. The claimant alleged that the defendant had infringed the claimant's Community trade mark, pursuant to, among other things, art 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 (on the Community Trade Mark) and had committed passing off. The Chancery Division held that, the inherent distinctive character of the trade mark in issue and its enhanced distinctive character were factors which supported the existence of a likelihood of confusion. The claim for passing off was made out for essentially the same reasons as its claim under art 9(1)(b). 

Elections – Local government. The petitioner, an independent candidate at a local government election, brought the election petition, under s 127 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, to challenge the validity of the election. The Election Court, in dismissing the petition, held that, as a matter of law, r 45(3A) of the Parliamentary Election Rules contained in Sch 1 to the Act applied only to parliamentary election counts and did not apply to local government election counts. Further, the Returning Officer had not been guilty of any act, omission or breach of duty in relation to the election and the first respondents had been duly elected. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The mother applied to the United Kingdom Courts for the recognition and enforcement of an order made by a Russian court granting her custody of SG. SG had not been heard by the Russian court prior to the making of the order. The Family Division held it was open to it to refuse the mother's application on the basis of art 32 of the Hague Convention 1996. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant banking institution brought a claim against the defendant construction management company concerning advice provided to it on proposed lending opportunities. The issue was whether a deputy master had erred in holding that service of the claim form by email be amounted to good service, pursuant to CPR 6.15. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that the deputy master had been wrong to conclude that, on the facts, there was a good reason to make an order under CPR 6.15. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to serve the balance of a sentence amounting to three years and nine months imposed for offences committed between April 2003 and July 2007. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on all the facts, notwithstanding the seriousness of the original offending, now fairly ancient, and bearing in mind that the appellant had already served approximately 14 months' imprisonment, it would be disproportionate in all the circumstances to return him, in particular, having regard to his daughter's very rare congenital heart disease. 

Town and country planning – Development. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development on the basis that he was deprived of the four year limitation period in s 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 due to his deliberate concealment. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the principle laid down in Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another ([2011] 4 All ER 851) had not been replaced by ss 171BA to 171BC of the Act and the inspector had not failed to apply that principle correctly. 

National Health Service – Medical records. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Health Service Commissioner's decision, declining to investigate her complaint against the interested party's hospital, on the basis that it was unlawful as her complaint had been incorrectly interpreted. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the gravamen of the claimant's complaint against the interested party had been that it had failed to comply with its statutory obligations and provide copy documentation. At no stage had the claimant made it clear that she had wanted the defendant to investigate the interested party's excuses or explanations, or any underlying systemic failures. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The patient had learning difficulties and was on the autistic spectrum. He lacked capacity. He required an operation to treat cancer, which he did not want to undergo. The relevant NHS Trust sought an order that it was in his best interests for the surgery to take place. The Court of Protection held that it was overwhelmingly in the best interests of the patient to undergo the surgery. 

Divorce – Appeal. Post divorce, the husband had refused an open offer of settlement from the wife. As a result, the judge in effect dismissed his application for financial remedy. The husband sought permission to appeal and that was refused on the basis that his appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.