Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83 and of art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr. N., a Pakistani national and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ireland) and the Attorney General concerning the Minister's refusal to consider Mr N.'s application for subsidiary protection status on the basis that he had not previously submitted an application for refugee status. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Simca Europe Ltd (Simca) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between GIE PSA Peugeot Citroën and Simca, concerning the application by Simca's predecessor for registration of the word sign 'Simca' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Asos plc (Asos), established in the United Kingdom, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Roger Maier and Asos, concerning the application by Asos for registration of the word mark 'ASOS' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Pedro Group Pte Ltd (Pedro) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Cortefiel, SA, and Pedro concerning the application by Pedro for registration of the word sign 'PEDRO' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the applicant's action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Beyond Retro Ltd (Retro) and S&K Garments, Inc.(S&K), concerning S&K's obtaining international registration of the word mark 'BEYOND VINTAGE' as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Construction. In the course of litigation concerning the funding of the 'gherkin' premises in London, the Commercial Court considered the interpretation of cl 9.7 of the facility agreement between the parties. The court held that, on the true construction of the agreement, the claimants' interpretation was to be preferred. 

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma of the pleura. She brought a claim against her former employer for damages for personal injury, alleging that she had contracted the illness due to asbestos exposure during her the course of employment. The Queen's Bench Division, dismissing the claim, held that, on the facts, the defendant could not have foreseen the risk of injury to the defendant when she had worked for them at the relevant time. 

Income tax – Loss relief. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners rejected the taxpayers' claims to set off trading losses in respect of certain partnerships so as to reduce their payments in respect of tax due, as the partnerships had entered into a settlement agreement. The taxpayers sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that as a result of the restatement of the partnership losses under the settlement agreement, the taxpayers had lost the right to carry back to earlier years the higher pre-amendment losses which had been claimed. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The proceedings concerned a dispute concerning work carried out in Pakistan. In the course of the dispute, proceedings were issued in Pakistan by the defendants, but stayed by the Pakistani court. The claimant company commenced proceedings in England and obtained judgment in default against the defendants. The defendants applied to have, among other things, an order allowing the claimant to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction and judgment in default set aside. The Commercial Court held that the challenge to jurisdiction would fail, but the judgment would be set aside to allow the claim to be defended on limited grounds. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The important question raised by the instant case was whether the United Kingdom government had any right in law to imprison people in Afghanistan; and, if so, what was the scope of that right. The claimant, was captured by UK armed forces during a military operation in Afghanistan. He was imprisoned on British military bases in Afghanistan for some time when he was transferred into the custody of the Afghan authorities. The claimant claimed that his detention by UK armed forces was unlawful (a) under the Human Rights Act 1998 and (b) under the law of Afghanistan. The Queen's Bench Division held that his extended detention for a total of 106 days beyond the 96 hours permitted by policy was not authorised and was contrary to both Afghan law and the European Convention on Human Rights.