Latest Cases

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 49 and 56 TFEU had to be interpreted as meaning that they did not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provided that the provision of urgent and emergency ambulance services had to be entrusted on a preferential basis and awarded directly, without any advertising, to the voluntary associations covered by the agreements, in so far as the legal and contractual framework in which the activity of those associations was carried out actually contributed to the social purpose and the pursuit of the objectives of the good of the community and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation was based (see [65] of the judgment). 

Practice – Appeal. Three cases were heard together to enable the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to give guidance on the approach that should be taken to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that the principles to be derived from Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2014] 2 All ER 430) and Denton and others v TH White Ltd and another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others ([2014] All ER (D) 53 (Jul)) applied to applications for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Consideration was given to public law cases, and cases involving a shortage of funds and litigants in person. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by The Coca Cola Company (Coca-Cola) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between Coca-Cola and Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) regarding the application by Mitico for registration of a figurative sign in elegant script depicting the word: 'Master'. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local authority to grant planning permission and conservation area consent to redevelop a site within a conservation area. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the planning officer's report had not applied the statutory presumption against the grant of permission in conservation area cases, laid down by s 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 

European union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Heidrick Struggles International Inc (Heidrick) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning an application by Heidrick for registration of the word sign 'THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY 'as a Community trade mark. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The claimants had been refused civil legal aid funding in cases that involved immigration issues. Their judicial review challenges had been successful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his interpretation of when exceptional case funding was required by s 10(3)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. It further affirmed the judge's conclusions that the second defendant Lord Chancellor's Exceptional Funding Guidance (Non-Inquests) was not compatible with arts 6(1) and, in immigration cases, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor was it compatible with art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 

Human rights – Right to respect for family and private life. Following revelations by Edward Snowden, the claimants asserted their belief that investigation of the respondents would show that their privacy had been unlawfully invaded. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that the law gave individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions upon which the intelligence services were entitled to resort to interception or to make use of intercept. Accordingly, as of the date of judgment, there was no contravention of arts 8 or 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Health authority – Negligence. The claimant dentist brought a claim against the defendant in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty, alleging that the defendant had unlawfully removed his name from the Hackney dental performers list and that he had suffered financial losses as a result. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that no duty of care had been owed to the claimant, either under the statute or at common law to protect him from economic loss and, if that was wrong, there had been no breach. 

Practice – Striking out. The proceedings concerned case management decisions made during the course of litigation, which arose out of the termination of a joint venture agreement. By two orders, the judge dismissed the defendant's applications that the claim be struck out for, among other things, failure to comply with the timetable laid down by an earlier order in respect of disclosure, service of a schedule of account, and exchange of witness statements. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeals, held that the judge had approached the issues before him correctly and had been entitled to dismiss the defendant's applications for strike out. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother of two girls had fled the family home with the children and residence orders had subsequently been made in her favour. The father applied for direct contact with the children. A fact-finding hearing led to the conclusion that the mother was in genuine fear of the father and that he had threatened to kill her. Assessments had placed her as being at high risk of 'honour' based violence. The original CAFCASS officer had recommended against direct contact between the father and children. The second officer recommended direct contact. The judge dismissed the father's application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been entitled to disagree with the recommendation of the second officer and had given reasons for his conclusion. Further, the judge had had in mind all the factors that had fallen to be balanced.