Westminster Watch

European Union – Concept of state aid. The applicant, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (the club), sought annulment of the European Commission's decision to classify compensation paid to the club by Madrid City Council as state aid within the meaning of art 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The compensation had been paid to the club following the inability of MCC to perform its obligations under the relevant agreement in relation to the transfer of land to the applicant. The General Court of the European Union annulled the Commission's decision on the ground that the Commission had failed to prove to the requisite standard that the compensation had conferred an advantage on the club. Since at least one of the cumulative requirements for a measure to be classified as state aid had not been satisfied, the compensation could not be treated as state aid for the purposes of art 107(1) TFEU.

European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had been right to decide that there had been a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public between the figurative sign 'SkyPrivate' sought to be registered by the applicant and the earlier UK word mark 'SKY', registered by the intervener company, Sky Ltd, established in the UK. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's application for annulment of the Board's decision to uphold the intervener's opposition to registration of the applicant's mark.

Practice – Jurisdiction. The doctrine of forum non conveniens applied in circumstances in which proceedings were issued in England and Wales against a party domiciled in Scotland in relation to harm allegedly suffered both within the United Kingdom and abroad. So the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held in dismissing the appellant's claim defamation and data protection claim against a stay of the proceedings in the UK courts.

Company – Share purchase agreement. The first defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claimant companies' claim for damages for, among other things, deceit in relation to the alleged misrepresentation of the financial circumstances of the first claimant company following the entry by the second claimant company into a share purchase agreement for the purchase of the first claimant's holding company. Consequently, the Commercial Court granted summary judgment on the first claimant's claim for damages against the first defendant. However, the court was not prepared to decide any other points on a summary basis, including the first defendant's counterclaim and additional claim.

Contempt – Committal. The appellant insurance company's appeal succeeded, against a decision of a judge of the High Court not to allow it to commence committal proceedings against the respondent. The respondent had issued personal injury proceedings, but had discontinued them after evidence had emerged of him having made false statements. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in principle in his approach to the exercise of his discretion.