Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marls. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier (Louis Vuitton) requesting that the Court set aside the judgment in Vuitton Malletier v OHIM: Case T‑237/10 in so far as the General Court of the European Union had thereby dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to an application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by Friis Group International Aps in respect of the registration of a figurative sign owned by Louis Vuitton which Louis Vuitton had sought to register as a Community trade mark. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The employee had issued proceedings in the employment tribunal alleging detriment on grounds related to union activities contrary to s 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal had allowed his claim and the employing NHS Trust had appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the relevant trade union had not been independent at the time of the acts complained of, namely three years before, therefore the tribunal had not had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employee's appeal. It held that the question whether a trade union was independent did not affect the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal in a claim under s 146 of the Act. Further, a certificate of independence was retrospective in its effect for a reasonable period before the date of the certificate. Historic questions of independence were to be referred to the certification officer. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 2(b) and (d), art 4(1)(a) and (c), art 12(b) and sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of art 14 of Directive (EC) 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the and of art 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. and the Spanish Data Protection Agency (the AEPD); and Mr Costeja González concerning a decision by the AEPD upholding the complaint lodged by Mr Costeja González against those two companies and ordering Google Inc. to adopt the measures necessary to withdraw personal data relating to Mr Costeja González from its index and to prevent access to the data in the future. 

Local government – Councillor. The claimant long-standing local councillor challenged the Adjudication Panel for Wales' (the tribunal) decisions that he had breached the local council's codes of conduct, and disqualifying him for two years and six months. The Administrative Court held that the tribunal had correctly applied the civil standard of proof, but had erred in its factual findings with respect to two of the 14 alleged breaches. Further, the tribunal had imposed a manifestly excessive period of disqualification and it would be substituted by a period of 18 months. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant companies brought proceedings, claiming that their trademark for a battery-charging tool had been infringed by products sold by the defendant companies. The defendants contended that the trademark had been invalidly registered. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that, on the evidence, the trade mark had been validly registered and had been infringed by the defendants. 

Costs – Assessment. The applicant coach company had been a defendant in a personal injury action and had its costs assessed on a detailed basis. It applied for permission to appeal on the basis that the judge had misapplied CPR 44 of the old version of the rules. The Queen's Bench Division held that in assessing costs, a court could consider on an item by item basis whether a particular item of costs was proportionate and necessary even if costs were proportionate on a global basis. Permission to appeal was refused. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The claimant, a 14 year old girl, was knocked down by the defendant who was driving a motor vehicle. The claimant sustained serious head injuries and brought a personal injury claim in negligence against the defendant. In a trial to determine primary liability and contributory negligence, the Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had been primarily negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and that claimant had been contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. 

A had been convicted of sexual offences and the Secretary of State sought to deport him. A challenged the deportation decision. One of his grounds of opposition was that he would be subject to violence in his country of origin if his crimes were known. An order was made, without notice to the media and without the ability for them to make representations, under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 that A could not be identified. The BBC sought to have that order set aside. The application was dismissed. The BBC appealed. The Supreme Court held that it had, in the circumstances, been necessary and lawful to have departed from the principles of open justice. Further, the order had not been incompatible with the rights of the BBC under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the procedure that had been followed had satisfied the BBC's entitlement to an effective remedy. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The appellant was convicted of two counts of the rape of the complainant, his wife, on a date between 15 December 2005 and 24 January 2012. On the same occasion, he was acquitted by the jury of four other counts of the rape and one count of assault by penetration of his wife and, on the direction of the trial judge, of a sole count of common assault. He appealed against his conviction. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that, inter alia, the verdicts were illogically inconsistent and were, in the circumstances, unsafe. 

Practice – Counterclaim. The parties had been engaged in proceedings in different jurisdictions before entering into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement that conferred jurisdiction on the English courts. Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky had issued proceedings in the Commercial Court whereas the bank and Mr Savelyev issued and served proceedings in the Chancery Division. The Chancery Division disapplied the Russian limitation period pursuant to s 2(2) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 but dismissed the Arkhangelskys' application for an anti-enforcement injunction to prevent enforcement of the judgments previously obtained against them. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had, in the circumstances, been correct to grant the anti-enforcement injunction, but had erred in refusing to grant the anti-enforcement injunction.