Latest Cases

Insolvency – Transactions at an undervalue. The liquidator had applied to recover money paid to the respondent company secretary as constituting transactions at an undervalue. The circuit judge found that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption that the company had not been insolvent at the time that the payments had been made. The High Court found that the presumption had not been rebutted and made its own findings on the solvency of the company at the relevant time. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the established law on when a company was deemed to be unable to pay its debts, within the meaning of s 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and dismissed the respondent's appeal. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant issued proceedings for defamation against the defendant, who applied for an adjournment to issue an application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was required to determine the meaning of the words complained of, and that would not preclude an application to strike out. Notwithstanding that the words complained of portrayed the claimant as a victim, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the instant case was defamatory. 

Copyright – Infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court struck out a claim for infringement of copyright in its entirety where it would not be appropriate to use the court's resources when the maximum damages which the claimant could claim was around £83. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant Afghani national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) (UT) to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the defendant Secretary of State to grant him asylum or humanitarian protection on the grounds that it would be safe for him to return to Afghanistan. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the UT had not been unaware of the nature of the appellant's case or of the evidence of threatening letters sent to the appellant by radical Islamic groups and his failure to respond to them. The UT had not made an error of law in reaching its decision. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant's claim for damages for alleged medical negligence had been struck out on the basis that it did not have a real prospect of success. Her application to reinstate the claim, and amend the particulars of claim, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed her appeal as the judge had been wrong to find that the amended claim had had no real prospect of success. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by American Express Marketing & Development Corp (American Express) against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning applications for registration by American Express of the sign IP ZONE and the signs EUROPE IP ZONE, IP ZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IP ZONE, respectively, as Community trade marks, 

Counsel – Disciplinary jurisdiction. The claimant barrister sought judicial review of the defendant Office for Legal Complaint's (the Legal Ombudsman) finding that complaints of his former client had been made out. The Administrative Court held that the Legal Ombudsman's findings that the claimant had been obstructive, offensive and unprofessional had not been Wednesbury unreasonable. The client's complaint had not been new and the claimant had had an opportunity to address it. Further, the claimant's complaints of bias had not been established. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the rejection of her discrimination and victimisation claims by the employment tribunal, held that on the factual material, despite any error in relation to the comparator approach, the tribunal had reached the correct decision. 

Discrimination – Disability discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an employer's appeal against the employment tribunal's finding of disability discrimination in relation to an employee where the tribunal's reasoning on the question of the employer's actual and constructive knowledge of the employee's disability and on its breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments had been insufficient. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Directive (EC) 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States), amending Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and repealing various other European Union directives. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr O and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum (the Minister), on the one hand, and between the Minister and Mr B, on the other, concerning the decisions refusing to grant them a certificate of lawful residence as a family member of a European Union citizen in the Netherlands