Latest Cases

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The General Court of the European Union upheld the action by Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Cezar) for annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) concerning invalidity proceedings between Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. and Cezar relating to the application by Cezar for registration of a Community design intended to be applied to 'skirting boards'. 

Medicine – Product licence. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on the basis that, when conducting a re-inspection, the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) was knowingly gathering evidence in the context and for the purpose of infringement proceedings which had been brought against it under Commission Regulation (EC) 658/2007. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not declare that the MHRA's response to the European Medicines Agency's requests under art 8(3) of the Regulation had been unlawful or rule substantially rule on the contention that the material provided contained errors. Further, the MHRA's conduct had not been procedurally improper and unlawful in failing to advise the claimant of the potential use of the information. 

Contract – Consumer contract. The proceedings involved a contract made in the claimant's home that the claimant had purported to cancel. The defendant charged him a cancellation fee and refused to refund him a deposit. In finding for the claimant, the Supreme Court held that a failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel did not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1816. 

Administration of estates – Payment. Following the death of W, a locum doctor, the appellant NHS authority submitted that money had been overpaid to W's executors and needed to be returned. The deputy pensions ombudsman held that repayment was not necessary. The authority appealed. The Chancery Division held that, while the ombudsman had acted within her powers, there were no grounds for limiting the authority's entitlement to repayment to the net assets of the estate, and her decision to that effect would be set aside. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant pharmaceutical company brought a claim against the defendant laboratories in relation to the repackaging of imported pharmaceutical products from abroad without the relevant license. The defendant put in a defence regarding the involvement of a sister company. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence it was arguable that some of the pharmaceutical products were invoiced and supplied to the sister company, which were then delivered by the claimant to the defendant laboratories for repackaging. The court gave the defendant conditional leave to defend. 

Tort – Harassment. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) and under an agreement made in 2002. The Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence, none of the individual allegations constituted harassment. Even if the court was to agglomerate them all together and to consider together all of those allegations which were capable as a matter of law of amounting to harassment, the court would still not be convinced that they demonstrated a course of conduct amounting to harassment so as to found civil liability. 

Company – Administration. The defendant appealed against the judge's order that the claimant administrators be permitted to sell the assets of a company, which were subject to a fixed charge security held by the defendant, as if they were not subject to that security. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that judge had approached the matter correctly, had properly taken into account the matters to which he had been bound to have regard and had come to a conclusion which had fallen well within the bounds of a reasonable exercise of his discretion. 

Employment – Equality of treatment of men and women. The employment tribunal, in considering the employee's claim for equal pay, found that the employee's work had been of equal value to that done by a male comparator and that the employer had failed to make out the genuine material factor (GMF) defence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal's findings had not been shown to be unsupported by evidence nor contrary to the agreed evidence. It had been entitled to conclude that the GMF defence had not been made out. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant agreed to sell to the defendants a freehold property. The issue arose of whether the defendants were liable to pay to the claimant the VAT charge on that transaction. A summary judgment application by the claimant was allowed. An appeal by the defendants was allowed. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it could be said that the parties intended that nothing was or could become payable by the defendants over and above the specified purchase price of £130,000. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant had been a learning support assistant whose duties had included pushing a student in her wheelchair. The claimant sustained a soft tissue injury that caused her chronic pain in her shoulder and back. Her claim for damages for personal injury from the school was dismissed, with the recorder finding that there had been no breach of reg 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2793. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there had been no error in the recorder's approach, reasoning or conclusion and dismissed the appeal.