Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application brought by Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH (Inter-Union) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Inter-Union and Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL (Gumersport) regarding the application by Gumersport for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'PROFLEX' as a Community trade mark. 

Town and country planning – Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss the claimant's appeal against refusal by the second defendant local planning authority of planning permission for a wind farm. The Secretary of State had recovered the appeal to himself and disagreed with the conclusions of the inspector he had appointed. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the standard of reasons required in a recovered appeal where the Secretary of State disagreed with his appointed inspector was the standard in accordance with well-established authority, applied as appropriate to the particular case. On that basis, the Secretary of State's reasons had been proper, adequate and intelligible. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, upholding an enforcement notice issued by the second respondent local planning authority, alleging that she had erected a dwelling without planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the inspector's decision letter had failed to grapple with the question of what operations had been carried out. However, he had not erred by failing to consider whether some steps short of complete demolition would suffice to remedy the breach of planning control. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Sufficiency of evidence – Misdirection – Unreasonable verdict. High Court of Justiciary: In appeals by three appellants against convictions for fraud involving mortgage loans a bank would not have granted had it known the truth about the borrowers' incomes, and by two of the appellants against convictions for transferring criminal property, the court rejected grounds of appeal based on sufficiency of evidence, misdirection by the sheriff and unreasonableness of the verdicts, however it concluded that it would be appropriate to quash the custodial sentences the sheriff imposed on the second and third appellants and to substitute community service orders. 

Human rights – Right to life. In March 1996, the applicant's son died while remanded in custody in Northern Ireland. She complained of substantive and procedural violations of arts 2 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that the delays in conducting the coroner's inquest and investigation could not be regarded as compatible with the United Kingdom's obligations, under art 2 of the Convention, to ensure the effectiveness of investigations into suspicious deaths. The applicant had undoubtedly suffered distress on account of the lengthy delay in the case and would be awarded €10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 

European Union – European Parliament. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Mr Schonberger (S) which sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Schonberger v Parliament: Case T-186/11, by which the General Court had dismissed as inadmissible S's action for annulment of the decision of 25 January 2011 whereby the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions had concluded its examination of the petition submitted by S. 

Local government – Control of dogs. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor ordering the destruction of the appellant's dog and interdicting him from owning a dog for two years following an incident in which the dog bit a child on the face, the court held that the sheriff was entitled to conclude that the dog was dangerously out of control in a public place but he had failed to consider properly a dog control notice as an alternative to destruction and it followed that the appeal should be allowed as to the order disqualifying the appellant from owning a dog. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parents, who were divorced, originated from Algeria but lived in the United Kingdom. The applicant mother applied to the Family Division for permission to take her children to Algeria. The court held that it was not in the interest of the children to allow the application. 

Building contract – Adjudication. A dispute arose between the claimant contractor and the defendant employer in respect of the claimant's application for interim payment for work done under a building contract. The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce a decision in its favour in an adjudication and for a declaration that the adjudicator in a second adjudication, brought by the defendant, lacked jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court, in granting summary judgment, held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration that the decision in the second adjudication was invalid for want of jurisdiction where the question in issue had to be taken to have been decided in the first adjudication 

Adoption – Arrangements. In a factually unusual case, a baby was removed from his birth mother with a view to adoption by A and B. Following the application to adopt by A and B, a man came forward, claiming to be the child's biological father. He was in fact so and strongly sought that his son should now move to live with his sister (the child's aunt) so that the child could grow up within his birth family and have the opportunity to enjoy a normal legal and psychological relationship with his father, paternal half-sibling, and other members of his extended, genetic paternal family, throughout his life. The Family Court agreed with that course of action and a care order was once again made in favour of the local authority.