Latest Cases

Damages – Apportionment. In the course of a dispute about the ownership of certain Indian companies, the defendants applied for an order for an inquiry as to damages under a cross-undertaking in damages given by the claimant in support of an injunction made by the English court. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claimant had not succeeded in showing that the loss allegedly suffered by the defendants had not been caused by the injunction, and therefore the application would be allowed and an inquiry would be ordered. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division held that the defendant department store retailer, House of Fraser, had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of the claimant's trade marks. Taking account of all factors, there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer between the trade marks and a logo used by House of Fraser. It followed that the trade marks were infringed. 

Trust and trustee – Shares in company. The Chancery Division considered a claim brought by one of two employee benefit trusts linked to the company Roadchef. The claimant submitted that a transfer of shares to another employee benefit trust had been void or voidable, and/or that the transfer had been carried out in breach of fiduciary duty and in order to personally benefit H, who was the managing director, chairman and chief executive of Roadchef. The court held that, on the evidence, the transfer had been void, and that H had acted in breach of fiduciary duty. 

Easement – Right of way. The claimants issued proceedings alleging interference with their of a right of way over the defendant's property. The trial judge granted a declaration defining the right of way, damages and ordered the defendant to pay the claimants' costs of an interim injunction, amended particulars of claim and trial. In dismissing the appeal in part, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had not erred in holding that the defendant had substantially interfered with the reasonable use of the right of way. In relation to costs, the trial judge had not erred in ordering the defendant to pay the claimants' costs, but he had erred in ordering the defendant to pay the costs of the amended particulars of claim and the claimants' interim injunction. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Bial-Portela & Ca SA (Portela), against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case R 1925/2010‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Portela and Probiotical SpA (Probiotical) regarding Probiotical's application to register a figurative sign 'PROBIAL Bial' as a Community trade mark. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employee brought proceedings for alleged unpaid wages. That claim was dismissed, and she appealed. Abusive and threatening emails were sent to the employer and its representatives on the employee's behalf. The employee withdrew her appeal two weeks prior to the hearing, and the employer sought a costs order. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in the circumstances, the employee's appeal had had no prospect of success, and that it would be appropriate to make the costs order sought by the employer. 

Easement – Right of way. The defendants proposed to build a wall along the boundary of their land adjoining the claimants' land. The judge made declarations in the claimants' favour on the basis that the conveyance to the claimants had contained an express right of way to their land. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the conveyance had not limited the claimants' access to their land. Further, even with a vehicular entrance, the proposed wall would constitute an actionable interference with the claimants' right of way. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The Divisional Court re-opened the appellant's appeal against the decision to extradite him to the respondent requesting state to consider further questions regarding his extradition in circumstances where it was agreed that at the time of the instant hearing he was unfit to plead. The Divisional Court held that, in the instant case, it was not unjust or oppressive to order the appellant's return, provided the requesting state was prepared to give an undertaking to permit his return to the UK in the event it was found, after a reasonable time for further treatment in the requesting state, that he was likely to remain unfit. 

Employment – Worker. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal on account of his trade union activities, held that the employment tribunal had not erred in holding, on the facts, that no contract between the claimant and the second respondent end-user had been established. 

Company – Winding up. In the course of winding up proceedings, the claimant made applications for rescission, variation or review, or alternatively a stay, of the winding up order. The Chancery Division held that the applications would be dismissed, as neither ground of rescission had been made out, and the staying of the winding up order would be disproportionate.