Latest Cases

Evidence – Expert witness. The CPR Pt 20 claimants alleged that the defendant had breached his duty as director of a company, in administration, in which they had held shares. The defendant applied to strike out the claim, alleging that an expert report, relied on by the claimants, had been made by an expert with a conflict of interests. A judge refused the application to strike out. The defendant appealed. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no evidence that a conflict of interest existed alleged such that the court should rule the expert report inadmissible. 

European Union – Transport. The present proceedings between Mr Glatzel and Freistaat Bayern concerned the decision by which Mr Glatzel had been refused a driving licence for vehicles in categories C1 and C1E, as defined by Directive (EC) 2006/126 (the Directive), on the ground that the visual acuity in his worse eye did not reach the minimum level required in point 6.4 of Annex III to that directive. Following a request for the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) to make a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of point 6.4 of the Directive with arts 20, 21(1) and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the minimum standards relating to the physical fitness to drive a motor vehicle as regards visual acuity, the Court decided that consideration of that issue did not reveal any information capable of affecting the validity of point 6.4 of Annex III to the Directive. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant issued proceedings, alleging infringement of its registered trade mark by the defendant. The defendant counterclaimed for a declaration of invalidity and for rectification of the register. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court found the claimant's infringement claim made out, but dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. In particular, it held that it was well arguable that the implied requirement of reasonable clarity identified in Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks ([2012] IP & T 650) applied to original registration of a trade mark and a later claim by a competitor or opponent that it was invalid. 

Child – Court proceedings in relation to child. The local authority sought a reporting restrictions order in resepct of a child whose mother had been purportedly murdered by her father. The child was in care whilst her father awaited trial for the murder. The press association opposed the order on the basis that among other things there was insufficient evidence of harm to the child she was named. The Family Division held that the application would be refused. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant left the police force for another job with a regulatory body before an internal investigation into his misconduct was completed. The force through its Assistant Chief Officer GH sent on his behalf sent a standard reference which did not answer questions in the regulatory body's reference request raising the claimant's sickness and disciplinary record. The Chief Constable brought proceedings seeking to send another fuller second reference. The Queen's Bench Division held that the Chief Constable was obliged by his duty to act with honesty and integrity not to give a standard reference for the recipient because that was misleading. However given the circumstances it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and would undermine the claimant's legitimate expectations for the second reference to be sent. 

European Union – Community foreign and security policy. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Sina Bank, an Iranian bank, for annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran); and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 1245/2011 (implementing Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as those measures had maintained, after review, the name of Sina Bank's name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and in Annex VIII to Regulation 961/2010. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by K-Swiss Inc., (K-Swiss) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to invalidity proceedings between Künzli SwissSchuh AG and K-Swiss, Inc., in respect of the application by K-Swiss for registration of a figurative sign consisting of a two-dimensional representation of the shape of a shoe showing five parallel stripes. 

Dentist – Disciplinary proceedings. Patient A, being dissatisfied with the service that M, a dentist was providing referred the matter to the General Dental Council (the council), who found the allegations proved and suspended M for four months. M appealed against that determination on the grounds that the findings of fact made by the professional conduct committee (the committee) were wrong and that the suspension that was contingent upon the finding of dishonesty should be set aside. The Administrative Court held that the challenges to the committee's determination would be rejected save for the allegation that his conduct in altering two out of the five records was not dishonest and the sanction would be quashed. 

Practice – Costs budget. In proceedings concerning a dispute over a lease, the claimant served its costs budget two days late, namely five, rather than seven, days prior to the first case management conference. The claimant applied for relief from sanctions. The Technology and Construction Court held that the non-compliance or breach had been trivial and/or insignificant and/or inconsequential, and that the claimant could rely on its costs budget. Further, completion of a case management information sheet did not in any way relieve a party from its separate obligations to file and/or serve a costs budget in accordance with the provisions of CPR 3.12 to 3.18. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimants sought summary judgment and declarations regarding the ownership of property, in respect of which trust deeds had set out ownership. The defendant contended that, notwithstanding those trust deeds, it had been the intention of his elderly father, the second claimant that the defendant would hold the property on trust for him. The Chancery Division granted summary judgment where there was no arguable case that the trust deeds were in fact a sham and where there was no other compelling reason why the case should go to trial.