Latest Cases

Account – Indebtedness. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the sum of £1,215,000. The judge had not fallen into error in holding that transactions between the parties in the course of a trading relationship had not been recorded in a running account, and he had not erred in the way he had approached the burden of proof and in having reached the conclusion to which he had come on that issue. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Masafi Co. LLC against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, concerning opposition proceedings between Hd1 Ltd and Masafi Co. LLC, regarding the application by the later for registration of a figurative sign 'JUICE masafi' as a Community trade mark. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant's revised claim for summary judgment in respect of an award made in adjudication concerning payment under a construction contract. The claimant could not relate the present revised claim for summary judgment back to an interim payment claim notified in December 2014 to take advantage of the absence of a payment notice and a payless notice from the defendant in January 2015, in order to seek summary judgment on its revised claim. Further, it was not unjust for the fresh proceedings to go to trial and they were not an abuse of process. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection dismissed a mother's appeal against a judge's decision declaring that her daughter, who had autistic spectrum disorder, lacked capacity and that it was in her best interest to move to a supported living placement. The judge had been entitled, on the facts, to come to the decisions that he had and, in so doing, had not breached art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Criminal law – Information. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the dismissal of five informations relating to the respondent's sale of a motor vehicle on the basis that the justices could not be sure that he had been a 'trader'. The justices had never addressed the respondent's previous sale of some 19 cars and whether there had been a degree of regularity which had made the respondent a trader. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on the appeal by DPAS Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that DPAS did not make supplies of services within the exemption for transactions concerning payments or transfers to patients of dentists for whom DPAS provided practice-branded dental plans. The tribunal decided, among other things, that there was an agreement between DPAS and the existing patients who had signed and returned the relevant acceptance forms under which DPAS provided services to the patients in return for consideration. However, the issue as to whether such supplies were exempt would be reserved unil after the Court of Justice of the European Union had given its judgment in two similar cases. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court allowed the charterers' appeal in an arbitration concerning delay the failure of a vessel to meet certain speed and performance warranties. It held that, among other things, the arbitrator had made an error of law when considering the meaning of 'good weather' in the case and had failed to properly consider part of the vessel's journey. The case was remitted to the arbitrator. 

Shipbuilding contract – Arbitration clause. The Commercial Court granted the first claimant company, a buyer of a vessel under a shipbuilding contract, a final anti-suit injunction restraining a bank from continuing to pursue in China a claim against it alleging fraud where the parties had chosen London arbitration as a neutral forum and where the first claimant had obtained an arbitration award in London in which the allegations of fraud had been considered and dismissed. The court ruled that it would be vexatious and oppressive for the first claimant to have to face the same charge in two different tribunals. The court did not grant an anti-suit injunction restraining the bank's pursuit of proceedings against the second claimant bank (Alpha), which had loaned the first claimant money towards the purchase of the vessel, but was not a party to the shipbuilding contract. Alpha was, however, granted a declaration of non-liability. 

Patent – Infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against revocation of its patent entitled 'Interactive special events video signal navigation system' concerning the ability of a television viewer to interact with his television set so as to cause it to display information. The judge had not taken too broad an approach in his construction of the claim. 

Mortgage – Loan secured by mortgage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant borrowers' appeal, affirmed the judge's decision, which itself had affirmed the decision of a district judge, that it was an abuse of process to seek to litigate questions arising out of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 more than two years after the making of an order for possession. Issue estoppel could not be set up against statutory provisions enacted for the protection of certain vulnerable categories of person or for the protection of others who engaged in dealings with such persons, but it did not follow that the respondent lender could not rely on abuse of process.