Latest Cases

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division found that the defendant had infringed the claimant's registered mark but had not been guilty of passing off, in the use of the word 'glee' in its television series (see[2014] All ER (D) 70 (Feb)). The court made rulings concerning the relief to be granted. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against a finding of the employment tribunal that the claimant had been an employee of an insolvent company, for which she had been the sole-owner, prior to it becoming insolvent and therefore entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to s 166 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, despite the claimant not having enforced her contractual right to the payment of a salary in the two years prior to insolvency, the tribunal had been entitled, on the facts, to find that the claimant had been an employee at the material time. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, who had entry clearance as the post-flight spouse of a refugee, applied for public funds and indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence. The application was refused by the defendant Secretary of State and the claimant sought judicial review of the refusal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant failed to meet the requirement that her partner was a British citizen or a person settled in the UK, that the Secretary of State did not have a general discretion to provide public funds to a person in the claimant's position and, therefore, there was no basis on which to quash the Secretary of State's decision. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The Professional Conduct Committee of the first respondent General Chiropractic Council found that the second respondent had been guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and imposed a six-month suspension order, without provisions for any review. The appellant Professional Standards Authority referred the case to court. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that there was plainly evidence which supported additional allegations of dishonesty. Further, the appeal against the sanction would be allowed, primarily because of the lack of provision for review. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Sri Lankan national had been refused asylum, but the European Court of Human Rights had held that his return would be a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant absconded and failed to comply with his reporting restrictions as a sex offender and the civil war in Sri Lanka ended. The Secretary of State decided to remove the claimant to Sri Lanka in light of the improved conditions there. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's dismissal of his judicial review challenge to that decision. There had been no unlawfulness in the Secretary of State's delay in making a decision as to his status after the decision of the Strasbourg Court. 

Criminal law – Trial. Four of the seven defendants charged with conspiracy to supply heroin applied to dismiss the charge, which was refused. However, the judge subsequently ruled that six defendants had no case to answer and the prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the difference between the rulings did not matter, as the position at the close of the prosecution case had been dispositive. The judge had made an error of principle or had reached a conclusion not reasonably open to him, as the facts had been sufficient for the prosecution to answer the no case submissions at the close of its case. 

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. The claimant company (Westbrook) had granted sub-underleases of almost all of the flats in a property to 612 companies (the SVPs). It sought a declaration that it was entitled to the freehold of the entire property. The defendant was the freeholder of the property. It challenged the entitlement of Westbrook to purchase. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the challenges to Westbrook's enfranchisement application failed. It was entitled to declarations as to its entitlement to enfranchise and other relief. 

Immigration – Appeal. The issue for determination was whether the condition, under art 7(1)(c) of Directive (EC) 2004/38, that the appellant's wife should have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom had been satisfied, as she had been entitled to use the National Health Service (the NHS). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the conditions in art 7(1) of the Directive were to be interpreted strictly. Accordingly, the fact that the wife would be entitled to treatment under the NHS was nothing to the point and the appellant was not entitled to qualify for permanent residency in the UK. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The second defendant operated a waste transfer station under a permit granted under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 by the claimant, the Environment Agency. The first defendant was the waste site manager. A suspension notice was issued seeking to reduce the accumulated pile of waste on the site by imposing conditions. Following an alleged lack of compliance with that notice, the claimant applied for committal of the defendants for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application finding that there had been too much uncertainty as to what and how the relevant part of the order was to be complied with for it to be enforced by the process of contempt. 

Libel and slander – Damages. The claimants, the owners and operators of a money transfer business in London, contended that the defendant channel had broadcast a TV programme that was defamatory of them. Judgment was entered for the claimants for damages to be assessed and for the determination of whether the claimants were entitled to any other remedies. The Queen's Bench Division held that in respect of general damages, the correct sum for the defendant to pay was £20,000 to the first claimant and £20,000 to the second claimant.