Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG (Schuhhaus) against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) relating to opposition proceedings between Schuhhaus and Carrera SpA (Carrera) concerning the request by Schuhhaus for protection for the word mark 'Carrera panamericana'. 

Human rights – Fair trial. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the inability of four men to bring torture compensation claims against Saudi Arabia in the United Kingdom courts did not breach the right to a fair trial under art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 15(c) of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Diakité, a Guinean national, and the Belgian Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons concerning the latter's decision not to grant Mr Diakité subsidiary protection pursuant to that directive. 

Human rights – Right to Fair Trial & Access to Justice. European Court of Human Rights: The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber found, in a case concerning the question of the responsibility of the state for the sexual abuse of a schoolgirl by a lay teacher in an Irish National School in 1973, that the Irish State's failure to protect her from sexual abuse and her inability to obtain recognition at national level of that failure had violated arts 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Land registration – Rectification of register. The claimant sought an indemnity from the defendant Chief Land Registrar following the rectification of the register concerning a charge, which was subsequently found to be a forgery. The Registrar contended that the claimant was not entitled to an indemnity and, alternatively, that it should be reduced due to the claimant's lack of proper care. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that the claimant was entitled to an indemnity, on the proper construction of the relevant legislation. Further, the agreed quantum would not be reduced, although interest for a specified period would not be awarded. 

Swap agreement – Interest rate swap agreement. The defendant entered two interest rate swaps with an Italian local authority. The claimant entered a third swap with the authority, which the Italian Court of Auditors of the Regional Chamber of Control for Campania found to be an impermissible derivative transaction under a decree. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant on the basis that the second swap had been void. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had failed to show that: (i) the decree did not permit restructuring of principal; (ii) the second swap had resulted in an increasing profile; and (iii) there was a premium. 

Solicitor – Negligence. Following a successful claim by the claimant solicitor for unpaid fees by the defendant client, the defendant, on payment of money into court brought a counterclaim in negligence against the claimant. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had not been negligent and, even if the claimant had been, the defendant had not established that he was suffering any of the alleged loss of profits and/or wasted expenditure. 

Practice – Service. Deutsche Bank applied without notice to add V as a party to the proceedings for the purpose of costs only. The Commercial Court, in proceedings concerning Deutsche Bank, held that a previous order granted in favour of the bank to serve V out of the jurisdiction could not stand where, on the facts, there were no grounds for justifying service by alternative means. 

Insolvency – Voluntary arrangement. In considering the claimants' appeal in respect of whether they were bound by the terms of a varied individual voluntary arrangement approved at a further creditors' meeting at which they had not voted, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the reference to 'further meetings' in s 262(4)(b) was a reference to further meetings under s 257 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The creditors for the purpose of the further meetings were those known to the nominee at the date on which those meetings were summoned. Accordingly, the statutory binding under s 260 of the 1986 Act had applied and the claimants were bound by the terms of the IVA in relation to their original debt and the costs due. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant applied for judicial review by which he sought declarations that his detention pending deportation by the defendant Secretary of State had been unlawful. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim, holding that in the instant case the Secretary of State had not breached the Wednesbury principle or the principles under R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh [1984] 1 All ER 983