Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant for an unpaid debt for the provision of electricity. The defendant failed to comply with court orders and judgment in default was granted in favour of the claimant. An application was made for relief from sanctions, which was granted and the judgment in default was also set aside. The claimant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the judge had erred in his application of CPR 3.9 and the appeal would be allowed. 

Animal – Protection. In judicial review proceedings, the claimant sought declarations that certain types of conduct did not fall within the prohibition, in art 18(1)(b) of European Parliament and Council Regulation 1223/2009, on the placing on the Community market of cosmetics containing ingredients which, in order to meet the requirements of the Regulation, had been tested on animals, and so would not involve the commission of a criminal offence. The Administrative Court held that there was a real issue of law that needed to be resolved. Accordingly, it referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The husband had been excluded from the family home, following the grant of a non-molestation order made following a without notice hearing. During the subsequent proceedings, the husband's application for relief from sanction was dismissed. In allowing the husband's appeal, the Family Court highlighted important principles applicable to such cases. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the claimant company against the discharge of three interim third party debt orders which had been obtained by the claimant on a without notice basis. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local planning authority to discharge a condition of the planning permission for a nine-turbine wind farm. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had not acted unlawfully in discharging the condition and the claimant had no expectation of consultation. Further, no exceptional circumstances had existed which had led to the conclusion that the authority had acted so unfairly as to have abused its powers. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action by Formula One Licensing BV (Formula One) for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Racing-Live and Formula One regarding the application for registration of a figurative sign depicting: 'F1-LIVE' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by Sport-pari ZAO (Sport-pari) for annulment of certain decisions and regulations adopted and maintained by the European Council concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus. The General Court allowed the action and annulled the contested acts on the basis, amongst other things, that the European Council had not established that the ground alleged against Sport-pari to justify its continued listing had been well founded. 

Pleading – Amendment. The claimant company appealed against the judge's refusal of permission to re-amend its particulars of claim in proceedings alleging dishonest breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance against the defendants. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the judge's decision had been a decision well within his case management discretion and a correct exercise of that power. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the action brought by BelTechExport ZAO for annulment of certain decisions and regulations adopted and maintained by the European Council concerning restrictive measures adopted against Belarus. The General Court annulled certain of those decisions and regulations but dismissed the rest of the action as being inadmissible. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant Yemeni national issued judicial review proceedings, seeking the quashing of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing her application for a British passport and a declaration that she was entitled to rely on DNA testing. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that the claimant had failed to establish her identity and, accordingly, the stage of establishing her relationship had not been reached, such that the issue of DNA testing had not arisen on the evidence available to the Secretary of State.