Latest Cases

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, 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant lorry driver issued proceedings against his employer after suffering injury in descending the lorry's steps. The judge dismissed his claim and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in finding that the steps had not been inherently dangerous and that no training was needed because the need to take care was obvious. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employees had been Nigerian women working in the United Kingdom pursuant to migrant domestic worker visas. They had commenced various employment claims against their employers. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the employers' treatment had not been on the grounds of the employees' nationality, therefore they had not suffered direct racial discrimination. The court upheld a finding of victimisation in one claim and remitted the matter for a decision on remedy. 

Costs – Wasted costs. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Bedale Golf Club Ltd (Bedale) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (FTT) to reject Bedale's application for an order for costs against the Revenue and Customs Commissioners following a ruling by the FTT that it had no jurisdiction to hear Bedale's appeal. The tribunal held that the Revenue had not behaved unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings. 

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 – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 20, 21(1) and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and 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 directives. The request had been made in two sets of proceedings between the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum (the Minister), on the one hand, and, respectively, Ms S. and Ms G., third‑country nationals and family members of a European Union citizen of Netherlands nationality, on the other, concerning the Minister's refusal to grant them a certificate of lawful residence as a family member of a Union citizen in the Netherlands. 

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. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The parties had been involved in divorce proceedings where the wife had incured costs. She applied for a legal services payment order (LSPO) pursuant to s 22ZA Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The divorce proceedings were stayed but the LSPO was not. The husband appealed and the matter came on for hearing along with the wife's application for a lump sum and the LSPO. The Family Division allowed the husband's appeal and found that the 

Misrepresentation – Negligent misrepresentation. The claimant invested £200,000 in a private company incorporated by the defendant to conduct further clinical trials of a new class of drug for the treatment hepatitis and a range of sexually transmitted diseases. She brought a claim, alleging that she had done so in reliance on negligent misstatement by the defendant. The Chancery Division held that the defendant was liable to the claimant for negligent misrepresentation by reason of the material omissions from a document issued by the directors of the company about the use of the investment proceeds. Damages were assessed in the sum of £200,000. 

Criminal evidence – Disclosure. Police officers arrested two military officers on suspicion of having committed offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989. The commissioner of police sought disclosure of journalistic material, which required an application to be made to the court inter partes. A judge allowed an application by the commissioner to hear certain evidence ex parte. The Administrative Court quashed that order on the basis that it was unlawful. The Supreme Court, dismissing the commissioner's appeal, agreed with the Administrative Court's decision that it had not been permissible for the judge in the lower court to adopt the course he had adopted.