Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, the first sentence of art 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 should be interpreted as meaning that the licensee could bring proceedings alleging infringement of a Community trade mark which was the subject of the licence, although that licence had not been entered in the Register of Community trade marks. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney made by the patient in favour of C as her sole attorney as according to s 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, C had behaved in a way that contravened his authority and was not in the patient's best interests. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), allowing the employee's appeal, held that an employment tribunal (the tribunal) had erred on a number of points relating to claims brought by the employee for, among other things, harassment. The tribunal had dismissed the employee's claim for harassment, as the employee did not personally share the protected characteristics referred to. The EAT held that that was not necessary for a claim of harassment to succeed. The EAT further held, in dismissing the employer's cross-appeal, that knowledge of the employee's disability was not a pre-requisite for the employee bringing a claim of disability discrimination. The case was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration on the harassment point. 

Negligence – Professional person. The Queen's Bench Division held in a case of professional negligence brought by the claimant against her counsel and solicitor following a settlement in a personal injury case that the defendants had not been negligent in advising her to take the settlement. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed a claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her application for an interim payment, which had been made in the course of proceedings in which she claimed damages against the defendant NHS trust for personal injuries she alleged she had sustained as a result of clinical negligence. On the present state of the evidence and argument, the court could not be satisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount of money. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of its claim for judicial review of the grant of planning permission by the defendant local planning authority for a mixed use development. The court considered the correct approach which the present court should adopt in relation to the exercise of discretion by the judge in a case of the present kind, and held that the criticisms of the judgment itself could not be sustained and did not show that the decision had been 'wrong'. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a costs order following determination of quantum in a negligence claim where liability had been compromised. The judge had erred in having come to a decision that had been outside the bounds of reasonable decision making which was, moreover, in large part based upon an error of principle in having construed the defendant's offer to settle under CPR Pt 36 as having been an offer capable of acceptance by the claimants when, in the circumstances, it had not been. 

Landlord and tenant – Opposition to grant of new tenancy of business premises. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a landlord's appeal in respect of a declaration that he had not established his entitlement to rely on s 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and an order that a new tenancy of business premises should be granted by the landlord to the tenant. The case was remitted for a re-trial before a different judge. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Latvia to serve a mandatory custodial sentence of five years for driving without a licence and whilst under the influence of narcotic substances, and two counts of possession of methylampetamine. Mandatory sentences were not, of themselves, disproportionate and the balance struck by the judge with respect to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been wrong. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 14(b) of Directive (EC) 2009/103 should be interpreted as meaning that that provision did not contain any specific conflict-of-law rule intended to determine the law applicable to the action for indemnity between insurers in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.