Latest Cases

European Union – Pension. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of art s 48 and 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and arts 12(1), (2), 46(1)(2), and 94(2) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of the Council, as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Somova and the Director-General of the Sofia 'Social Security' office (the SUSO) in relation to the decision of the SUSO demanding repayment of the sums received in respect of a right to an individual old-age pension, together with interest, on the ground that that right had been granted in breach of art 94(1) of the Bulgarian Social Insurance Code. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The Chancery Division gave directions relating to the distribution of sums to depositors, on an application by the Financial Conduct Authority pursuant to s 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in respect of a tiered Ponzi scheme. The court gave guidance on how the discretion was to be exercised. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) allowed the application by British Telecommunications plc to vary an interim relief order made by the tribunal pending an appeal by British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (Sky) against the decision of the Office of Communications to vary the conditions in the broadcasting licences of Sky for its core premium sports channels. 

Employment – Sex discrimination. The employee brought a claim for indirect sex discrimination. The question arose as to whether the employment tribunal had correctly construed a reference to the phrase 'power to afford access' in s 56(5) of the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, on the evidence, the tribunal had not erred, and the narrow construction sought by the employee would deprive the phrase of any real meaning, which could not have been Parliament's intention. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In deciding whether to make an interim supervision order, the Family Division considered the child's best interests. When those criteria were considered, it was apparent that the local authority's plans for immediate action were in the child's best interests. 

National Health Service – England. The claimant unsuccessful asylum seeker sought judicial review of provisions of the National Health Services (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2001, SI 2011/1556, on the basis that they gave rise to unlawful disability discrimination and had breached the public sector equality duty. The Administrative Court held that the Regulations had not failed the test of being manifestly without reasonable foundation, as the Secretary of State had justified the discrimination. However, the Secretary of State had not had due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. 

European Union – Common agricultural policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation and validity of art 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) 795/2004 (laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers), as amended. The request had been made in an appeal brought by Mr Feakins against a decision of the Scottish Ministers concerning the determination of the reference amount for calculating his single payment entitlements under Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The activities of the defendant, Marks and Spencer plc, which gave rise to the proceedings concerned the display on the internet of their advertisements in response to the entry into the Google search engine by internet users of search terms consisting of or comprising the word 'interflora' or minor variants of it. The judge gave judgment for the claimants on their claim for infringement of their national and Community registered trade marks for the word 'interflora'. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge had wrongly held that the onus lay on the third party advertiser to show that the use of the sign in context was sufficiently clear. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. PC executed an Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of her two sons JC and AC. JC conceded that he had intermingled his mother's money with his own but also with his company's funds. AC had also benefited by such behaviour. The Court of Protection General Visitor indicated that PC lacked capacity to revoke the LPA herself. The Public Guardian applied for the court to revoke the LPA. The Court of Protection allowed the application and a member of the panel of deputies was to apply to be appointed as PC's deputy for property. 

Education – Teacher. The claimant was a teacher who had qualified in South Africa. He challenged the defendant local authority's decision that he had not completed the requisite statutory induction period (the SIP) and not to grant him an exemption from that requirement. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to complete the SIP, there was no power to grant an exemption and the authority had not acted irrationally or unfairly in refusing to accede the claimant's request to deem that the obligations had been met or to waive such requirement.