Latest Cases

Child – Care. Following the birth of the child to two mothers who were in a civil partnership, the mothers refused the father contact with the child on the basis that had been the agreement. The father applied for contact arguing that the agreement had been that he would have a part in the life of the child and that he was not merely a sperm donor. The Family Division held that, on the balance of probabilities, it could not be argued that the father had merely agreed to be a sperm donor and there was no good reason why he should not have contact, as that was what was in the child's best interests. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, the defendants had infringed the claimants' trade marks and had committed acts of passing off in respect of their supply or sale of 'Betty Boop' merchandise. Whilst there was no law which provided that invented characters had stronger rights than people in respect of the control of reproduction of their image, it seemed to be easier to educate the public to believe that goods relating to an invented character derived from a single official source than it might be for a real person. 

Education – Nursery schools. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a teaching union challenging the legality of an education authority appointing persons who were not registered teachers as heads of nursery schools, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not erred in rejecting the petitioners' grounds for review based on statutory illegality, school closure, breach of a collective bargaining agreement, absence of power to make the decision complained of, and disappointment of a legitimate expectation of consultation. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant local authority's challenge to the first defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant outline planning permission to the third defendant developer as the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State had been guilty of no error of law in his report. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The defendant Secretary of State had arranged for the claimant asylum seeker to be removed to Cyprus, as he had initially claimed asylum in that member state before making his claim in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that in the absence of a human rights claim of substance, the claimant's legitimate public law interests had been protected by the assumption that it would not matter to the outcome where in the Community an asylum application was heard. The discretion in art 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 had been a matter solely between the UK and Cyprus, not justiciable in the instant court at the insistence of the claimant. 

Social Security – Benefit. The applicants were single mothers, or the children of single mothers, who had sought judicial review of the government's introduction of a cap on welfare benefits as being particularly disadvantageous to women in general and to women escaping domestic violence in particular. The Divisional Court had dismissed their application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal on the grounds that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2994, had not infringed any of, or a combination of, arts 8, 14 and art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, there had been no infringement of art 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

European Union – Taxation. The provisions of Eighth Council Directive (EEC) 79/1072 (the Eighth Directive), read together with arts 38, 171 and 195 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person established in one member state and who had made supplies of electricity to taxable dealers established in another member state had the right to rely on the Eighth Directive in the latter state in order to obtain a refund of input VAT. That right was not precluded merely by the designation of a tax representative who had been identified for VAT purposes in the latter state. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Dismissing the appellants' appeal against the district judge's decision to extradite them pursuant to Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the Divisional Court held that none of the matters relied on by the appellants in the instant case had significantly lessened the public interest in the appellants' extradition. Nor in the circumstances of the case would the public interest in extradition be outweighed by an interference with the appellants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Order – Application to set aside order. The Technology and Construction Court set aside an order granting a claimant an extension of time to serve its claim regarding a building dispute and dismissed the claim where it had not been validly served within the time of validity of the claim form. 

Costs – Security for costs. In the course of litigation regarding insurance on a vessel, the claimant companies failed to comply with an order for security for costs, providing the security on the day after the time period for doing so ran out. The defendant companies refused to accept the security. Both parties made applications to the Commercial Court. The court held, in allowing the claimants' application to allow the stay to be lifted, that the case was not such that the principles in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 314 (Nov) would apply, and that the default had been trivial.