Latest Cases

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Sharif University of Technology in Iran for annulment of Council decision Decision 2012/829/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as it had listed that university in Annex II to Decision 2010/413. The General Court decided, inter alia, that the Council had produced no evidence from which it could be established that the applicant had carried out the alleged acts. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned linked cases in the British Virgin Islands and Georgia. The defendant, C, appealed against an order of the master dismissing his application for a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. He submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction under art 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The Chancery Division held that art 22 of the Regulation did not apply, and that a stay of proceedings would not be granted. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned an action brought by the claimant for infringement of three United Kingdom registered trade marks concerning the word 'WILKO' and for passing off. The defendant admitted infringement. The claimant sought summary judgment and an order that the defendant disclose the names and addresses of its suppliers of the infringing goods. The Chancery Division held that, whilst there was jurisdiction to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order, on the balance of irreparable harm, as appeared from the evidence, the disclosure sought would not be granted. 

Immigration – Asylum/deportation – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a Gambian national who sought reduction of the Upper Tribunal's decision to refuse leave to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal dismissal of his appeal against refusal of asylum and against deportation, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that there were two compelling reasons and one important point of principle which justified the further progress of the case. 

Statute – Construction. The Attorney General for England and Wales referred a question to the Supreme Court, seeking to know whether, on the true construction of s 108 of, and Sch 7 to, the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill 2013 was within the legislative competence of the National Assembly of Wales. The Supreme Court held that, on the true construction of the legislation, the Bill related to agriculture and, hence, was within the legislative competence of the Assembly. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claimants employed the services of S, a patent attorney. They brought proceedings against S and companies connected to him contending that he had caused them loss through negligent advice. The Chancery Division held, in dismissing the claim and allowing S's counterclaim for unpaid fees, that, although S had acted negligently in some areas, negligent advice had not caused any loss and the loss claimed had not been caused by the negligent advice. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products). The request had been made in proceedings between Bayer CropScience AG (Bayer) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office concerning the validity of a decision by which that office had refused to grant a supplementary protection certificate to Bayer in respect of a safener, Isoxadifen, and the salts and esters thereof. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Earthshine Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (FTT) to uphold the decision taken by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse Earthshine credit for input tax. The tribunal decided that, reading the FTT's decision as a whole, it was impossible to say that it had reached irrational or perverse conclusions, or that it had failed to explain its conclusions. 

Practice – Extension of time. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant bank, contending that the bank had made unauthorised transferrals of its money. The claimant was given permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction. The defendant did not challenge the service at the time, but later sought permission from the English court for an extension of time to apply to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. The Chancery Division held that no good reason had been shown for the failure to apply in time for an extension of time, and dismissed the application. 

Patent – Petition for revocation. The hearing officer, Deputy Director acting for the Comptroller of Patents, held that two patents held by the claimant company (Farrow) were invalid for obviousness and lack of inventive step. Farrow appealed against the decision concerning one of the two patents. The Patents Court held that, on the evidence, the appeal would be dismissed.