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. 

Town and country planning – Development consent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal in respect of the proposed redevelopment of a site on the seafront at Margate, found that the Secretary of State had not unlawfully failed to consider the cumulative effects of the proposed development with the effects of the redevelopment of an adjacent site. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned an application for summary judgment by the claimant against both defendants. An issue arose as to whether the claimant could bring the claim it made in the action on the basis of assignments. The Commercial Court held that the claimant succeeded and that it could bring the claims on the basis of the assignments. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial for causing damage to a shop, two drink-driving offences, and two taking and driving charges. The Administrative Court held that the first of the drink-driving offences offended against the dual criminality rule, as he had been below the prescribed maximum level of blood alcohol for driving in the United Kingdom. However, dual criminality was met as to the other offences. Further, extradition would not be disproportionate. 

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. 

Housing – Local authority. The applicant had been removed from the local authority's register for an allocation of permanent accommodation following a change in its policy which meant that, as she had been placed in suitable temporary accommodation with a private landlord, she was excluded from the register. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in hearing the application for judicial review, held that, on the basis that the setting of qualification criteria under s 160ZA(7) of the Housing Act 1996 was subject to the reasonable preference duty under s 166A(3) of that Act, that part of the authority's housing allocation scheme had been unlawful. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a mother's appeal against an order that she pay the father's costs in respect of all applications relating to the children since May 2012 and held that it had been wrong in principle and on the facts for the judge to have made an order for costs against her. 

Criminal law – Grievous bodily harm. The defendant had been convicted of violent disorder (count 1), manslaughter (count 2) and wounding with intent pursuant to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (count 4), following a violent attack by a group of youths, in which a man was seriously injured and his son was killed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against conviction on count 4 and substituted it for a conviction for unlawful wounding pursuant to s 20 of the Act. His sentence for the s 18 offence was quashed and substituted for a sentence of four-and-a half years' detention in respect of the s 20 offence.