Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by The Hut.com Ltd (The Hut), established in the United Kingdom, seeking annulment of a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Intersport France and The Hut concerning the application by The Hut for registration of the word sign 'THE HUT' as a Community trade mark. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee issued a claim in the employment tribunal that she had been subjected to race discrimination. Her claim was dismissed as being out of time. She issued a second claim which repeated the same allegations but also included a complaint of conduct that extended over a period. The claim was struck out as being an abuse of process as, the employment judge determined, those new complaints had occurred before she had issued her first claim and, had she considered that conduct to be race discrimination, she would have included the complaints in her first claim. That decision was affirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the decision to dismiss the claim for abuse of process for the reasons given by the employment judge. 

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claimant's action to enforce his parent's promise that he would inherit property, held that the correct characterisation of the case was of a constructive trust arising by virtue of a proprietary estoppel. The claimant had relied on their promise to his detriment and, accordingly, equity required that he be awarded the entire beneficial interest in the property. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employee, an eminent doctor and insurance consultant, brought a claim alleging age discrimination against her employers after a consultancy agreement had been terminated. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in law by only considering the mental process of a senior manager of the employers, but failing to examine the mental processes of other people, who had been significantly involved in the process leading to a decision to terminate the employee's consultancy agreement. The case was remitted to the tribunal for redetermination. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The applicants were a father and his school age daughter who had left Iran to seek asylum. They had passed through France on their way to the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State issued removal directions as France had formally accepted responsibility for dealing with their asylum claims. The applicants contended that removal would be a breach of their rights as the daughter would be unable to attend public school as she wore a cover in accordance with her Muslim beliefs. The Secretary of State confirmed her earlier decision. The applicants' claim for judicial review failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that removal would not constitute a flagrant violation of the applicants' rights under arts 8 or 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and they had not rebutted the presumption that France would comply with its Convention obligations. Further, the removal decision had not breached s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. 

National Health Service – General medical services. The defendants were dentists who had provided dental services to the claimant NHS commission under arrangements made between then and the Primary Care Trusts (the PCT's). The claimant was the statutory predecessor to the PCT's. At the time those arrangements had been made, the defendants were regarded as health service bodies and therefore the arrangements between them and the PCT's were NHS's contracts under s 9 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (the 2006 Act). The claimants sought redress under the 2006 Act. The defendants disputed the claims on the basis that the claimant could, and should have, pursued its remedies under the statutory scheme in respect of breaches of the arrangements which were alleged to have taken place while the arrangements were still NHS contracts, and could not now remedy that omission by suing in the ordinary courts for sums allegedly due under or in respect of the arrangements. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the claimant's case on the basis of s 9 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (the 2006 Act). 

Contract – Contract for services. The claimant company was employed by the defendant companies to assist in finding financial backers for a construction project. It claimed for commission that, it alleged, was due to it under a contract. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the evidence, the claim advanced would fail. 

Sentence – Murder. The defendants appealed against their sentences of life imprisonment for murder, with a specified minimum term of 40 years and concurrent sentences of 15 years' imprisonment for each of two counts of attempted murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly identified the aggravating factors. Accordingly, the length of the minimum term had rightly reflected the entire criminality of the defendants' conduct. 

Judicial review – Application for judicial review. The claimant sought an extension of time to seek judicial review of the issue of a search warrant on the ground that he had only become aware that his grounds to challenge the decision when he had discovered R (on the application of Vuciterni and another) v Brent Magistrates' Court and another ([2012] All ER (D) 323 (Jul)) (Vuciterni). The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had known about the Vuciterni judicial review during his police interview and his misleading assertion to the contrary disqualified him from a decision to extend time to file his claim. 

Ward of court – Removal of ward from jurisdiction. A mother had fled the jurisdiction with her child who had been made a ward of court. In the course of proceedings seeking their location, the judge had retained the passport of the mother's 16 year-old-son in order to induce him to persuade the mother to return. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that such a coercive order was outside the ambit of the court's powers.