Latest Cases

Feeds

Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Mr Hesse against a judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG(Porsche) and Mr Hesse concerning an application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'Carrera' as a Community trade mark. 

European Commission v Cyprus

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by failing to repeal, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, the age-related criterion in art 27 of the Law 97 (Ι)/1997 on Pensions, Cyprus, which deterred workers from leaving their member state of origin in order to work in another member state, or in an EU institution, or in another international organisation and which had the effect of creating unequal treatment between migrant workers including those who worked in the EU institutions or in another international organisation, on the one hand, and civil servants who had worked in Cyprus, on the other, Cyprus had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and under art 4(3) TEU. 

Viiniverla Oy v Sosiaali-ja terveysalan lupa - ja valvontavirasto

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether there was an 'evocation' within the meaning of that provision, the national court was required to refer to the perception of the average consumer who was reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, that concept being understood as covering European consumers and not only consumers of the member state in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the protected geographical indication was manufactured. 

Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held in answering preliminary issues in a libel action, that the publication of the part of the article on the open website in the United Kingdom had not caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, and the pursuit of proceedings in respect of that publication would be an abuse of process. 

Onos v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove her and her three children. However, it declared that the entire period of her detention had been unlawful, as it had breached the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. Accordingly, claimant was entitled to nominal damages for the first 72 hours of her detention, but compensatory damages for the extent to which her detention had exceeded 72 hours. 

Goldtrail Travel Ltd (in liquidation) v Aydin and others

Court of Appeal – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the third defendant company's application to vary an order requiring it to pay a judgment debt into court as a condition of the continuation of its appeal against a judgment awarding the claimant company (in liquidation) equitable compensation for dishonest assistance of breaches of fiduciary duty against the company by its sole director. The court took account of the position of third defendant's controlling shareholder and chairman, who was wealthy and able to provide it with financial assistance, and held that the third defendant had not established that it could not have satisfied the condition. In those circumstances, the court had no proper alternative but to dismiss the appeal. 

*R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice

Mental health – Patient. In allowing the appellant patient's appeal, the Supreme Court held that it would be wrong to have a presumption that an anonymity order should be made in every case in civil proceedings in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital or otherwise subject to compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. However, in the present case, the anonymity order in place would be maintained on the basis that without it there was a very real risk that the progress the appellant had made during his long years of treatment in hospital would be put in jeopardy and his re-integration in the community, which had been an important purpose of his transfer to hospital, would not succeed. 

*Mirga v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Samin v Westminster City Council

Social Security – Benefit. The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals regarding the eligibility for benefits of European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom. It held that the applicable Regulations did not infringe the rights of the appellants under the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union, and that it was not possible to invoke proportionality to entitle a person to have the right of residence and social assistance in another member state, save perhaps in extreme circumstances that did not apply to the appellants. 

John Sisk & Son Ltd v Duro Felguera UK Ltd

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that the claimant company was entitled to summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award of in excess of £10m in respect of work at a power plant, which the claimant had been engaged by the defendant company to carry out. The defendant's challenge to the adjudicator's decision on the grounds that there had been breaches of natural justice and/or a wrongful delegation of the adjudicator's decision-making function, failed in every ground. 

*R (on the application of McKenzie) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the legality of the procedure set out in the Operational Handbook of the Serious Fraud Office for dealing with material potentially subject to legal professional privilege embedded in electronic devices. The procedure was lawful and, in particular, the preliminary sift of paper or electronic material did not have to, as a matter of law, be conducted by third parties. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Investment in justice

The Bar Council will press for investment in justice at party conferences, the Chancellor’s Budget and Spending Review

Job of the Week

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases