Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. The application of the CPR Pt 20 defendants to strike out the defendant companies' CPR Pt 20 claim against them succeeded, in a dispute concerning the acquisition of companies from the first defendant by the claimant company. The Commercial Court held that the CPR Pt 20 claim was an abuse of the declaratory form of relief and the proper course was to strike it out in its entirety.

Land – Title. Neither of the surviving competitors in the proceedings had established such title in respect of a tract of land on the island of Eleuthera as ought to be reflected in a certificate granted under the Quieting Titles Act 1959. Accordingly, the Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal insofar as the respondent's petition for the grant of certificate of title would be dismissed.

Trade mark – Mark. The appeal of the appellant company, Cadbury, against a finding of the Registrar of Trade Marks, failed. Cadbury had sought to delete one of two specifications in a mark that it owned, concerning the use of the colour purple in its chocolate products. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the mark did not consist of a series of marks, and that it was not a permissible registration of more than one mark within a single registration.

Husband wife – Separation. In a case relating to two parties of Italian origin, who were married, but separated, the English court, despite being the court second seized, had jurisdiction in relation to a school fees order, child maintenance and the sale of a London property. Accordingly, the Family Division dismissed the applicant husband's appeals against, among other things, a ruling refusing a stay of the respondent wife's application under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 for the sale of a London property.

National Health Service – Charges. The defendant Secretary of State was not required to consult publicly before amending the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 2017, SI 2017/756, and imposing a requirement that advance payment for treatment be made, or requiring that records be kept of chargeable individuals. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, further held that the Secretary of State had complied with his duties under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 Act and the National Health Service Act 2006.

National Health Service – Duty to provide healthcare services. The Secretary of State had not been in breach of any public law duty in forming the view that what was necessary to meet all reasonable requirements for the allocation of kidney organs for the purpose of transplantation was an allocation which prioritised persons ordinarily resident in England over those not ordinarily resident. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review by the claimant Ghanaian national who suffered from end-stage kidney disease of para 4 of the NHS Blood and Transplant (Gwaed a Thrawsblaniadau'r GIG) (England) Directions 2005.

Contract – Construction. The appeal concerned the true construction of the indemnity provisions in a share sale agreement, which provided for the sale of the entire share capital of a company that provided financial advice to retail customers. The defendants (the indemnifying parties) had argued that the claimants had not complied with the requirements for giving notice of their indemnity claim. The dispute concerned the requirement (in the agreement) for notice to be given 'specifying the details and circumstances giving rise to the Claims or Claims and an estimate in good faith of the total amount of such Claim or Claims' (the bracketed words). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled, among other things, that the word 'Claim' in the bracketed words did not extend to an indemnity claim, as the defendants had contended. Accordingly, the court dismissed their appeal against the dismissal of their application for summary judgment on the claimants' indemnity claim, which arose out of two reviews required by the Financial Conduct Authority under s 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Coroner – Inquest. The defendant coroner in the inquest into the death of Poppi Worthington had not erred in law in including references to anal penetrationin the section of his review which concerned conclusion as to death and in his record of inquest. The Divisional Court, in dismissing her father's application for judicial review, held that the coroner's review had been exemplary, he had considered and analysed the evidence with particular care, and made findings of fact which were unchallengeable.

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. Pursuant to its power under r 5(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)(the tribunal) was not obliged to grant the suspension of a decision in respect of which a reference had been made if it was satisfied that to do so would not prejudice the interests of consumers. It was necessary for the tribunal to carry out a balancing exercise in light of all relevant factors and decide whether in all the circumstances it was in the interests of justice to grant the application. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the applicant company's application to suspend the variation by the Financial Conduct Authority of the permission it had granted to the applicant in relation to its right to exercise lender's rights and duties under regulated credit agreements.

European Union – 'Brexit'. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) had to be interpreted as meaning that, where a member state had notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the EU, that article allowed that member state - for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that member state and the EU had not entered into force or, if no such agreement had been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in art 50(3), possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, had not expired - to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the member state concerned had taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The Court of Justice of the European Union so ruled in a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 50 TEU in proceedings regarding the possibility of unilaterally revoking the notification of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU.