Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (FCG) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Micael Gulbenkian and FCG concerning Mr Gulbenkian's application for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'GULBENKIAN' as a Community trade mark. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant had applied for planning permission for a wind turbine, which had been refused by the second defendant local authority. The claimant appealed to the first defendant Secretary of State, who dismissed the appeal. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no failure to take into account a material consideration and that the planning inspector had given full reasoning. 

Costs – Order for costs. In earlier proceedings, the Technology and Construction Court had determined a number of preliminary issues which arose in proceedings concerning oil spillages in Nigeria, for which the defendant company had admitted liability. The court went on to consider costs and held that 10% of the costs of and occasioned by the preliminary issues would be costs in the case. Of the balance of 90%, the claimants should pay 75% of the defendant's costs, that was 67.5% of the overall costs and the full 90% of its own costs 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted planning permission to the interested party for the development of an agricultural building, subject to conditions. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to establish an error of law in the authority's decision-making process and that the authority had not failed to have regard to material considerations. 

False imprisonment – Damages. The police had been called to an incident in which the appellant had been implicated. The officer had blocked the appellant in a doorway and told him to calm down otherwise he would be arrested. The appellant pushed the officer and a fight broke out. The appellant's claim for damages for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal in respect of the claim for false imprisonment. There had been a brief 'technical' imprisonment arising from the appellant's unlawful detention in the doorway for which he would be awarded £5. 

Practice – Fast track. A subrogated claim had been issued by a care hire company against an insurance company following a road traffic accident. The claimant sought to have the claim allocated to the fast track where the damages claimed were above £5,000. The defendant admitted damages in a sum under £3,000, meaning that the disputed sum was under £4,000. The district judge allocated the claim to the small claims track and entered judgment in favour of the claimant in the admitted sum. The claimant's appeal against the allocation was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. There had been an unqualified admission by the defendant and judgment had been entered in that sum and accepted by the defendant. The sum disputed had been less than £5,000 and so the appropriate case allocation had been to the small claim track. 

Company – Administration. In the course of an administration, the claimant company claimed that the defendant administrators had caused or procured the company in administration to interfere with and/or wrongly retain a number of gaming machines belonging to an unpaid seller, MDM. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the administrators were not obliged to identify MDM's property for it. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The court revoked a lasting power of attorney executed by DP appointing JM. It found that JM had acted in breach of his fiduciary duties. The Daily Mail ran a story demanding to know why JM's anonymity had been preserved and its owner, the intervening party, made an application, in which it sought to have his full name made public. The Court of Protection, in allowing the application, held that the balance came down heavily and decisively in favour of the public being told who JM was. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Sudanese national sought judicial review of his immigration detention on grounds including the defendant Secretary of State's failure to respond to medical reports, allegedly supporting his claim to have been tortured. The Administrative Court held that the claimant was only entitled to nominal damages for one period of unlawful detention, as he would have been detained in any event. However, he was entitled to real damages for a period of unlawful detention after service of a further medical report, which would have resulted in the quashing of the deportation order. The court further ordered the claimant's release. 

Practice – Summary judgment. Sainsbury's brought proceedings against the defendants, concerning alleged negligence in the construction of a car park. The third and fourth defendants applied for summary judgment and/or to strike out the claim. The Technology and Construction Court, in striking out the claim, held that no duty of care had been identified in the case of the third or fourth defendants.