Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Committal. The respondent was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment for 29 breaches of court orders made in respect of proceedings brought against him and others, concerning the provision of estate planning and professional trustee services. The Chancery Division held that the breaches of the orders (including orders for disclosure and freezing injunctions) had been very serious and deliberate. It further considered that, had it not been for the evidence of the respondent's serious mental health problems, the sentence would have been significantly longer.

Contract – Construction. The judge had not erred in holding that, on the proper interpretation of a drug discovery and development agreement, the program ended when the collaboration term ended, with the consequence that the claimant wasn't thereafter entitled to any payments in respect of two compounds developed after the collaboration term had ended. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal.

Trade mark – Registration. A hearing officer in the Intellectual Property Office (acting for the Registrar of Trade Marks) had been entitled to uphold Twisted Automotive Ltd's opposition to Jaquar Land Rover Ltd's application to register a trademark 'LR' in the UK, in respect of goods in Class 12. Twisted Automotive Ltd claimed that it had been selling the same goods in Class 12 (second-hand Land Rover Defender vehicles, parts and accessories) and providing services under the unregistered sign 'LR Motors' since November 2015. The Chancery Division, in dismissing Jaguar Land Rover Ltd's appeal, held that the hearing officer had been entitled to decide that LR Motors would have succeeded in a passing off claim against Jaguar Rover Ltd in August 2016 and, therefore, that the opposition should be upheld.

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Application for disclosure. The defendant Civil Aviation Authority was ordered to disclose documents related to drafts of its press release itself and some concerning an allegation of differential treatment of the claimant as compared with other airlines, but not those related to communications between it and the Daily Mail. The Administrative Court further directed the defendant to reconsider drafts of a letter in respect of which it had asserted legal advice privilege in the light of its conclusions of principle.

Extradition – Particulars. The European arrest warrant, seeking the appellant's extradition to Latvia, and the further information did provide, in respect of all three offences, particulars of the convictions, including the conduct, the time and place where the offence occurred, and the sentence imposed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the orders for his extradition, further held that the judge had had proper regard to all the other features of the case, including the potential impact of his decision on the appellant and his family.

Extradition – Private and family life. Given the judge's finding that the effect of extradition on the appellant's two-year-old child would be 'absolutely devastating', the proper conclusion which he ought to have reached had been that the scales in the particular case had been tipped in favour of refusing extradition. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for her extradition to Poland to serve an activated suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment for seven frauds against banks.

Limitation of action – Action. The first defendant was successful in achieving a summary disposal of parts of the fourteenth claimant's claims, on the ground that the claims were statute-barred. The Chancery Division held that, by amending the original claim form to remove references to certain claims, the fourteenth claimant had lost his right to rely on those claims, whether in the original claim form or in the subsequent claim form which had been issued after the limitation period had ended.

Practice – Pleading. The defendant's application to strike out of the claimant's claim, due to defective service of the claim documents, pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c), was dismissed, as disposal of the case on the basis of a failure to serve the claim documents would not be fair in the circumstances. The Chancery Division further refused to summarily dismiss the claimant's claim, as although the claimant's assertion that an oral tenancy for a period of ten years had been created was rejected, the claimant's alternative submission, that a periodic tenancy had been created, raised a serious question to be tried.

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The mother's application to transfer care proceedings back from England and Wales to Ireland, where the proceedings had originated, was dismissed. The Family Court found that, pursuant to art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, it was not in the child's best interests for jurisdiction to be transferred and further, that the courts in Ireland were not better placed to assume jurisdiction.

Libel and slander – Identity. The claimant was entitled to damages of £40,000 for a libellous tweet published on Bristol UKIP's Twitter account before the 2015 general election. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant chairman of Bristol UKIP was liable for the tweet posted by the vice chairman on the basis of agency and subsequent ratification of the publication.