Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom to provide services. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a tenderer intended to carry out a public contract by having recourse exclusively to workers employed by a sub-contractor established in a member state, other than that to which the contracting authority belonged, art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precluded the application of legislation of the member state to which that contracting authority belonged which required that sub-contractor to pay those workers a minimum wage fixed by that legislation. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division, finding his trade mark to be invalid. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the Board had not assessed the distinctive character of the contested mark incorrectly or misapplied art 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009, in taking the view that the evidence had not been sufficient to show that the mark had become distinctive through the use made of it. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Moroccan national sought damages for unlawful immigration detention for a period of 22 months. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the first period of 12 months had been lawful. However, when applications for an emergency travel document had failed within a further two-month period, it should have been clear that the detention had been longer than had been lawful. Accordingly, eight months of the 22 months of detention had been unlawful. 

Will – Benefit. The Chancery Division held that the forfeiture rule applied in circumstances where the claimant had been convicted of the manslaughter of his partner and child, and where the claimant was the residuary beneficiary under his partner's will. Further, it held that the justice of the case did not require the effect of the rule to be modified. The court considered the claimant's culpability in the light of the mental disorder from which he was suffering on the day of the killings. 

Tort – Harassment. The claimants, who were involved in the running of amusement parks, sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from sending mass emails and setting up websites in which he campaigned on the issue of safety in theme parks, and criticised the claimants and other individuals. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no course of conduct which amounted to harassment. Accordingly, the claimants had not established that there was a serious question to be tried, still less that they were more likely than not to succeed. 

Police – Discipline. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant's decision to maintain his suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and refusal to consent to his resignation, contrary to earlier assurances. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held, inter alia, that the public interest in ensuring that the claimant remained subject to police disciplinary jurisdiction in such a serious case had justified the defendant departing from the representation previously made that he would not be prevented from resigning. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The appellant doctor admitted falsifying clinical assessment entries on his e-portfolio. Before the General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP), the appellant, it was said, on the advice of the barrister representing him below, initially denied that his conduct had been dishonest. The appellant later admitted that his conduct had been dishonest. The FTPP erased the appellant from the medical register and he appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FTPP had been entitled to reach that decision on the evidence before it, even if another FTPP might, possibly, have reached a different view. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employer had identified on the employee's itemised pay statements the deduction from his gross salary which it had made in respect of overpayments relating to sick leave. Those had been separately shown with a minus sign next to them, but the employer had not identified what the deductions were. In contrast to the employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the itemised pay statements, in particular, the minus entries, were deductions, as provided for by s 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and their purpose should have been identified. 

Immigration – Expulsion – Judicial review – Competency Court of Session: Refusing as incompetent a judicial review petition challenging decisions that the petitioner was liable to be removed from the UK and to issue directions for his removal, the court held that there existed an alternative statutory remedy by which the question sought to be raised in the proceedings could have been decided, the petitioner had not availed himself of the statutory procedure, and there were no special or exceptional circumstances. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment of a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in issue. The General Court of the European Union, in allowing the action, held that, having regard to the products in question, the overall impression produced by the marks at issue ought to have led the Board to conclude that there had been a likelihood of confusion between the marks on the part of the relevant public.