Latest Cases

Criminal law – Obstructing constable in execution of duty. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for resisting an officer in the execution of his duty. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been sufficient evidence for the justices to have found that consent had been given for the officer to enter the property on the first occasion. That consent had still been effective when the officer had re-entered the premises, pursuant to and within the scope of that permission. Further, the consent had not been terminated by words used by the appellant. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed an action brought by Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Junited) for annulment of a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Belron Hungary Kft - Zug Branch and Junited, regarding the application by Junited for registration of the word sign 'United Autoglas' as a Community trade mark. 

European union – Regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application (in joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11) by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for annulment of eight Council Implementing Regulations, implementing art 2(3) of Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 (on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 610/2010), in so far as those measures applied to the applicant. 

Will – Construction. A will had been made which left a gift of the deceased's unused nil-rate band for inheritance tax purposes to her family with the residuary left to the defendant charity. The executors successfully claimed under s 8A(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 for the surviving spouse increase in the nil-rate band. A dispute arose between the executors and the family as to whether, under the terms of the will, the increased nil-rate band increased the value of the legacy to the family. The judge gave an interpretation of the relevant clause of the will that favoured the family. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the charity's appeal as, on the true construction of the will together with s 8A(3), the increase in the nil-rate band had resulted in an increase in the size of the gift to the family. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Germany to stand trial for seven acquisitive offences on the basis that his daughter, born after his extradition was ordered, had been diagnosed with very serious health problems. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, the present was one of those very rare cases where extradition could properly be avoided, given the absolute disastrous effect on his family if the appeal was to be dismissed. 

Trade mark – Removal from register. Following proceedings brought by Specsavers opticians alleging infringement of its registered trade mark, the judge revoked the wordless version of the Specsavers logo that comprised two overlapping ovals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in hearing the appeal, referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of arts 9, 15 and 51 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 (on the Community trade mark). Judgment on the preliminary reference having been given, the court found that, in the unusual circumstances of the case, the judge had erred in ordering revocation of the trade mark where evidence that use of the wordless logo together with the registered word trademark superimposed over the top had served to identify the goods and services and that consumers perceived the wordless mark as being indicative of the origin of the goods and services. 

Easement – Right of way. The claimants and defendants were neighbours engaged in a dispute concerning the claimants' rights to open and close gates over their driveway, which, the defendants contended, constituted a trespass over the defendant's land, unless the claimants had a right to do so. The Chancery Division held that, while a right to occupy airspace by hanging a gate over the land forming a driveway was capable of being an easement, the claimants were not entitled to a declaration that they were entitled to an easement permitting the opening and closing of the gates at all times and for all purposes. The claimants had a right to close and open the gates for all purposes connected with the reasonable enjoyment of their property provided such use did not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the defendants' property. 

Trinidad and Tobago – Constitutional Law. The applicant police constable sat an exam for promotion to the rank of sergeant. He was told that he had passed the exam, but he was not promoted. He sought to persuade the respondent Police Service Commission of Trinidad and Tobago that he should be exempted from being required to take an exam for promotion to the rank of corporal. The Privy Council, in dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review, held that to allow the application would run counter to the basic structure of the promotion scheme. 

Bankruptcy – Offence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for 'a bankrupt making a material omission in a statement'. The court held, amongst other things, that the judge had given the jury full and impeccable written directions and the jury had had ample evidence on which to find that there had been pre-existing debts owed. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) that it had jurisdiction to deal with his application for permission for judicial review and refusing permission. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the claimant's objection to the jurisdiction of the UT had been and was well-founded. The decisions being challenged had been the rejection of his claim under the legacy scheme, which had not fallen within Practice Direction (Upper Tribunal: Judicial Review Jurisdiction).