Latest Cases

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. 

Company – Member. The petitioner, who was excluded from the first defendant company, which she had owned as a quasi-partnership with the second defendant, presented a petition to the court, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006, alleging that the second defendant had conducted the affairs of the company in an unfairly prejudicial manner. The Companies Court, in granting the petition, held that the second defendant had acted in a manner which had been unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner in respect of the company. Accordingly, an order was made, requiring the second defendant to purchase the petitioner's shares in the company at the price reflecting the fair and proper value of the petitioner's shares in the company as at the date she had been excluded. 

European Union – Commission. The applicant company alleged that its greenhouse gas emission allowances were stolen. It issued proceedings, contending that the European Union was liable by virtue of the European Commission's unlawful conduct in refusing to disclose the location of and prohibit all transactions concerning the allowances allegedly stolen. It alternatively contended that the EU had strict liability by virtue of the Commission's lawful conduct. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that it had not been established that the forms of conduct of which the Commission was accused were unlawful. Further, the damage alleged had not been unusual so as to establish strict liability. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for constructive unfair dismissal against the employer, but declined to determine whether there was a TUPE transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that whether there had been a TUPE transfer of employees had not been an issue for the tribunal to determine and, although the tribunal judge's choice of language at one point during the hearing had been open to criticism, a fair-minded and informed observer would not have thought there was a real possibility of bias. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (the Board), upholding the Opposition Division's rejection of its opposition to the registration of the intervener company's mark. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the Board incorrectly concluded there was no proof that an earlier mark enjoyed a reputation, but absent any link between the marks, the use of the mark applied for was not likely to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinct character or the repute of the earlier mark. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in allowing the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' appeal, held that the conclusion of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that, 'Spot the Ball' was a 'game of chance' for the purposes of Sch 5 to the Finance Act 1972, had not been one that was open to it on a proper understanding of the law. 

European Union – Workers. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of art 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 and annexed to the Association Agreement, and art 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the association. The request had been made in proceedings between the applicant and the respondent concerning a fine imposed on the applicant for having had works carried out by nationals of non-member states without those workers having been issued with a work permit.