Latest Cases

Architect – Registration. The appellant architect appealed against the respondent Architects Registration Board's Professional Conduct Committee's (the PCC) decision that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and the issue of a reprimand. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the PCC had had jurisdiction as the appellant had been registered and that an architect acting under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 had the same obligations as in other matters. Further, the PCC had been entitled to find the appellant's breach had constituted unacceptable professional conduct and to impose the reprimand. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The proceedings concerned the use of the words 'Ideal Home' as, or as part of, a trade mark for online mail order retailing services. The judge dismissed the claim brought by the claimant, IPC, against the defendant, Media 10, for infringement of its registered trade mark and dismissed Media 10's counterclaim for rectification of the register. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed both IPC's appeal and Media 10's cross-appeal. It held that the judge had been entitled to reject the claim for infringement of the registered trade mark and that Media 10 had wholly failed to establish that normal and fair use of the mark by IPC, in relation to online retail services, could ever have been prevented by an action for passing off. 

Gaming – Lawful and unlawful gaming. The claimant, a professional gambler won a significant sum gambling in the defendant casino. When the defendant refused to pay out the claimant sued for the sums owed. The defendant resisted the claim and contended that there was an implied term that the claimant would not cheat and that term had been broken The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant's actions constituted cheating for the purpose of civil law and his claim would be dismissed. 

Bankruptcy and Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant owed a debt to the second defendant local authority. By a consent order, a judge set aside a bankruptcy order made against the first defendant on the basis that security had been offered by way of a charge on his home. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order that the consent order should be rescinded, pursuant to s 375 of the Insolvency Act 1986, relying on alleged debts owed to unsecured creditors, which had not been brought to the court's attention. A district judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction to order rescission of an order made by the High Court and the matter was transferred to the Chancery Division. That court, dismissing the application, held that, applying Appleyard v Wewelwala[2013] 1 All ER 1383, s 375(1) of the Act did not empower review of an order made by a judge of the High Court on appeal under s 375(2) of the Act. In so far as other unsecured creditors might be affected by the provision of the security to a petitioner, it was neither necessary nor appropriate for their interests to be addressed in the context of the issue of whether, where security was offered and rejected, a bankruptcy order should be made or refused. 

Immigration – Rules. The claimant Nigerian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) student. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the effect of the transitional arrangement as contained in the Immigration Rules had been clear and that they had not resulted in unfairness to the claimant. Further, there had been no unfairness in the Secretary of State's decision not to exercise her discretion outside the Immigration Rules so as to grant a Tier 4 visa in the circumstances of the case. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for the erection of a wind turbine in the Norfolk Broads. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State had complied with his statutory duty with respect to the Broads and had properly applied the relevant planning policies. Further, the condition as to noise had not been irrational and the grant of planning permission had not specified the model of turbine. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court considered the circumstances in which a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) entitled a person subject to an extradition order to challenge that decision again after challenges had been rejected by the Divisional Court and the ECtHR. It held that permission to make the application was needed and then there would be consideration of whether the tests for re-opening had been fulfilled. If those tests were satisfied, the merits of whether or not the final decision had been wrong in the light of the changed circumstances should be considered. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Natura Selection, SL, (Natura) against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Natura and Afoi Anezoulaki AE (Afoi) concerning the application by Afoi to register the word sign 'natur' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Volvo Trademark Holding AB against 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 Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.,(Hebei) regarding the application by Hebei for registration of a figurative sign 'LOVOL' in black letters as a Community trade mark. 

Insurance – Claim. A fire occurred at the claimant company's premises. The defendant insurer avoided the policy, on the ground that R, the director of the claimant, or someone working on his behalf, had started the fire. The London Mercantile Court held that, on the evidence, the defendant had clearly shown to the appropriate standard that R, or someone acting on his behalf, had deliberately caused the fire.