Latest Cases

Pensions – Deficits. The Pensions Regulator had had power to issue a Financial Support Directive (FSD) on the appellant companies requiring them to provide financial support for a group pension scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had not erred in finding that the Pensions Act 2004 had had retrospective effect and that the Regulator had acted reasonably in issuing the FSD.

Company – Insolvency. A director was only liable if he had known or ought reasonably to have known that the relevant distribution was a misapplication. In so clarifying, the Chancery Division went on to make a number of findings in relation to the transactions sanctioned by directors of a company that subsequently became insolvent. The liquidators of the company had failed to show that the transactions had been entered into in breach of fiduciary duties or in order to defraud creditors.

Criminal law – Time. The judge had been correct to apply the time limit for laying an information under s 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to offences under the Welfare of Farm Animals (England) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/2078, rather than the longer time limit under s 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated against the judge's ruling that he did not have jurisdiction to try six charges against the respondents because the information was laid outside the six-month time limit.

Bankruptcy – Petition. It had been necessary for the judge to examine the views of the interests of creditors as a class with some care, in particular, given that the majority by value of 87% of the outstanding debts had opposed the making of the bankruptcy order. Accordingly, the Chancery Division allowed the appellant's appeal against the bankruptcy order.

Town and country planning – Development consent. In an application by the claimant adjacent land owner against planning permission granted by the council to itself over green belt land, the Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, held that the local planning authority of the council acted unlawfully in failing to take into account its previous decision. It was incumbent on the council to address the change in position that the development could have an adverse impact on green belt openness.

Guarantee – Enforcement. The claimant company succeeded in its claim for unpaid sums under an agreement. The Commercial Court held that the claimant had established its entitlement to the amount of US$2,300,170 for unpaid invoices. However, the claimant was not entitled to claim procurement fees, as no sufficient demand had been made for them.

Summary judgment – Strike out. The claimant, who alleged that a member of the British army (TS) had raped and sexually assaulted her while she had been serving in the Royal Navy in Gibraltar, succeeded on her appeal against a master's decision: (i) granting the defendant Ministry of Defence (MOD) summary judgment on the claimant's personal injury claim, on the basis that she had no real prospect of successfully establishing that the MOD was vicariously liable to her for TS's offences; and (ii) striking out part of her amended particulars of claim, on the basis that they did not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing a claim of misfeasance in public office. The Queen's Bench Division held that, in circumstances where the MOD had accepted that the relationship between it and TS was capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, the master had erred in failing to give appropriate weight to the combination of all the matters the claimant had relied on, which, in the court's judgment, did give rise to a real prospect of establishing vicarious liability. Further, the court ruled that the master had erred in striking out part of the claimant's amended particulars of claim where there had been no argument before him about whether, in committing the alleged offences, TS had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office.

European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had correctly concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign 'AC MILAN' for which the intervener company, Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan), had obtained international registration and the earlier EU marks 'AC', 'AC HOTELS MARRIOTT' and 'AC HOTELS BY MARRIOTT' which had been registered by the applicant, Marriott Worldwide Corp. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's application for annulment of the Board's decision.

European Union – Environment. Article 3(u) of Directive (EC) 2003/87, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that an installation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which produced, within the framework of its activity of 'combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 [megawatts (MW)]', referred to in Annex I to that directive, electricity intended essentially to be used for its own needs, had be regarded as an 'electricity generator', within the meaning of that provision. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the application by the applicant company for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to a natural gas processing installation.

European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had correctly decided that the applicant company (adidas AG) had failed to establish that the figurative mark that it had successfully registered consisting of three parallel equidistant stripes of identical width (applied on a product in any direction) had acquired distinctive character through use throughout the EU. It followed that the Board had been right to decide that the contested mark had been registered in breach of art 7(1)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and that it should therefore be declared invalid. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by adidas AG for annulment of the Board's decision.