Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a father's appeal against an order which both provided for his two children to live with the mother and dismissed his application for direct contact with his children, providing for there to be only indirect contact for an unspecified period of time in the future. The recorder had fallen into error by having failed to grapple with all the available alternatives before abandoning hope of achieving contact. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union ruled on two actions brought by Harrys Pubar AB (HP) and Harry's New York Bar SA (HNYB) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between HP and HNYB concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word mark 'HARRY'S BAR' as a Community trade mark. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant company's application for an order that the first defendant be removed as arbitrator from an ongoing arbitration between the claimant and the second defendant, pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996, where, on the facts, an allegation of apparent bias had been made out. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-trial judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted summary judgment to the applicant investors (members of the Davies Group) who had invested in a Caribbean development scheme. It ruled that the applicants were entitled to the sum that the respondents (directors of Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd) had agreed to pay in a settlement agreement made with them in October 2014. That settlement had arisen out of the applicants' claim that they had been induced to enter contracts concerning the development. The court held that the respondents' subsequent claim that they had been induced to enter into the settlement agreement by misrepresentation had no realistic prospect of success and had all the hallmarks of an attempt by the respondents to avoid their obligations under the agreement. 

Warranty – Breach. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's claim in part, where there had been breaches of warranty at a number of warehouses which the claimant had purchased. The court held that the claimant was entitled to recover various sums for breaches of warranty and for professional fees, totalling £497,186.52. 

Criminal law – Assisting offender. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction for murder, in circumstances where the appellant had allegedly assisted or encouraged another person to commit a murder. The court held that the principle regarding encouragement and assistance expressed in the case of Chan Wing-Siu v R (see[1984] 3 All ER 877) had been wrong. It invited written submissions as to whether to quash the appellant's conviction and order a re-trial, or to quash the conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made a parental order under s 54 Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 2008 despite the fact that the surrogacy relating to that order had concerned different parties to the original agreement which had been made with the surrogate in 2012. 

Criminal law – Assisting offender. The Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal against a conviction for murder in circumstances where the appellant had allegedly assisted another person to commit a murder. The court held that the principle regarding encouragement and assistance expressed in the case of Chan Wing-Siu v R (see[1984] 3 All ER 877) had been wrong. It invited the parties' written submissions as to the advice which it should tender regarding the disposal of the appeal. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that the meaning of a consent family remedy order meant that tax on a French property was not to come out of the wife's share of the proceeds. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed an application by the claimant local planning authority, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowing an appeal and granting permission for development. There were no grounds upon which to quash the decision.