Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. The judge dismissed the claimant's claim for rent from the defendant, ordered him to pay the defendant's costs and purportedly awarded the defendant a sum on its counterclaim. The claimant was granted permission to appeal against the award, on the ground that the defendant had only sought set off. The defendant conceded that point. The claimant consented to the disposal of the appeal, if the defendant disclosed documents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the appeal with respect to the award by consent. However, it ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs from his consent to the disposal, given the history of the matter. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Portuguese national was subject to a deportation order and detained pending deportation. He appealed unsuccessfully on human rights grounds. Subsequently, he sought to apply for revocation of the deportation order on the basis of change of circumstances. The Secretary of State refused the application and certified, pursuant to Reg 26(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, the grounds relied on as having been previously considered in an earlier appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review as the Regulations were not incompatible with either European Union law or the European Convention on Human Rights and the claimant's detention had not been unlawful. However, the certification decision would be quashed as it had been flawed for want of legally adequate reasons. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant issued medical negligence proceedings criticising the professional standards of M in diagnosing him with and treating him for aplastic anaemia, instead of dyskeratosis congenita. The judge dismissed his claim, relying, inter alia, on the fact that the claimant trusted M and would have followed her advice, which M stated would have been the same if his actual diagnosis had been discussed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge's conclusions had been unimpeachable. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(2) of First Council Directive (EEC) 89/104 (to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks). The request had been made in proceedings between Leidseplein Beheer BV and Mr de Vries, on the one hand, and Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull Nederland BV, on the other, concerning the production and marketing by Mr de Vries of energy drinks with packaging that displayed the 'Bull Dog' sign or another sign containing the word element 'Bull' or other signs which were confusingly similar to the trade mark registrations of Red Bull. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division considered a claim by Lush, a cosmetics company. Lush contended that the defendant companies, which were part of Amazon, the online retailer, had infringed its trade mark by using it to direct customers to other products similar to, but not sold by, Lush. The court held that, on the evidence, the Amazon companies had carried out the infringing acts alleged by Lush. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society). The request had been made in proceedings between certain journalists and Retriever Sverige AB concerning compensation allegedly payable to the journalists for the harm they considered they had suffered as a result of the inclusion on that company's website of clickable Internet links (hyperlinks) redirecting users to press articles in which the journalists held the copyright. 

Costs – Order for costs. A group litigation was brought by shareholders of the Royal Bank of Scotland in respect of the rights issue of its shares, which offered shareholders the opportunity of buying new shares at a discount to the current trading price. Following case management hearings, the Chancery Division considered whether costs sharing orders were to be made and the terms on which they ought to be made. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court considered a dispute in a building contract, revolving around the refusal of the defendant building contractor to sign a novation agreement in the course of development work. The claimant company appealed against the decision of an adjudicator. In dismissing that appeal, the court held, among other things, that the novation agreement had not been properly executed and would not be considered binding. 

Evidence – Similar facts. The claimants issued proceedings against the defendant Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, seeking relief in respect of alleged false imprisonment, assault, racial discrimination and infringements of their human rights. They made numerous applications contingent on the admission of eleven incidents of similar fact evidence against individual police officers. The parties sought the determination of the admissibility of the evidence as a preliminary issue. The Queen's Bench Division found four incidents were admissible, as they passed the test set out in O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police ([2005] 2 All ER 931). 

Injunction – Company. In the course of proceedings, the Commercial Court made an injunction to limit the defendant's ability to communicate with a third party. The claimant made an application to have the injunction lifted. The court held that, given that the injunction had been subject to misrepresentations and that, practically speaking, it served little purpose, it would be appropriate for the injunction not to continue.