Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning proceedings by Coca-Cola for the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a contour bottle without fluting. 

Shipping – Bill of lading. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that any case, in which a bill of lading was issued in 2008 incorporating the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of shipment and in which the country of shipment had (as in the present case) enacted the Hague-Visby Rules, should be regarded as a case which was subject to the Hague-Visby Rules, rather than the (old) Hague Rules. 

Insurance – Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles. The Mercantile Court ruled that the claimant insurer of the first defendant's car, which had caught fire at his place of employment while being repaired, causing damage to the employer's premises and the adjoining premises, was entitled to a declaration that the first defendant's car insurance policy, did not cover a claim (the claim) by the employer's insurer against the first defendant for an indemnity in respect of the sums it had paid out as a result of damage caused by the fire. It was not a 'normal function' of a car to undergo repair. The repair that had been undertaken to the car did not amount to 'using' the car, within the meaning of the car insurance policy. Accordingly, the policy did not respond to the claim. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed applications by the first and second defendants and by the third defendant businessman, Robert Tchenguiz, for summary judgment on claims brought against them. The claim against the first two defendants was for specific performance of obligations under an alleged oral agreement (for the purchase of their interests in groups of companies) and the claim against Tchenguiz was for damages and an injunction restraining him from procuring the first two defendants' breach of the alleged agreement. It ruled that the first two defendants had not demonstrated that the alleged agreement could not in law have amounted to a binding and enforceable contract and the claimants' claim had a realistic prospect of success. Further, the claimants were granted permission to amend their particulars of claim, the benefit of which meant that they would have a realistic prospect of showing that an alleged threat by Tchenguiz could amount to the tort of abuse of process. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimants' challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, dismissing the first claimant's appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to grant fresh planning permission with new conditions so as to regularise the on-going use of the site by the claimants' families as a gypsy caravan site. In particular, the inspector had not failed to distinguish between availability and suitability of alternative sites. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection in response to an application by a NHS Trust held that a patient following an assault by her violent partner lacked capacity to make decisions under ss 1-3 of the Mental Health Act 2005, and it was lawful and in her best interests to undergo termination of her pregnancy by surgical means and in the course of that process to undergo general anaesthetic and ancillary treatment. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to the interested party for a crematorium within the Green Belt. There had been no error of law in the decision-making process on the part of the authority. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-trial judgment relief. The Commercial Court granted the claimant lenders summary judgement on their claim against the defendants for sums outstanding under a syndicated loan facility agreement, along with interest. It ruled that the defendants' counterclaim for damages against the claimants could not provide them with an arguable defence to the claim because the 'no set-off' provisions of the facility agreement, under which the loan had been granted, were not subject to a test of reasonableness, under s 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, but applied with full contractual force. 

Trust and trustee – Shares in company. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's claim that an establishment created by his grandmother, O, to hold assets of hers had been part of her estate, or that she had retained the right to control the founder's rights in the establishment. Further, the court held that the establishment, and the foundation that replaced it, had not held its entire interest in certain shares on trust absolutely under Liechtenstein law for the trustees of O's trust. 

Sentence – Release on licence. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the conditions imposed upon his licence on release from prison. The conditions had not been a breach of the defendant Secretary of State's policy. Further, neither the imposition of the conditions in the claimant's case nor the provision within them for prior approval to their relaxation were disproportionate.