Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division struck out claims which had been brought against the defendant bank and its solicitors by M, her children and her two dogs and recorded that they were totally without merit. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for there to be a general civil restraint order made against M for a period of two years. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered art 13 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 and decided that although there had not been exposure to a grave risk of psychological or physical harm if L were returned to Bulgaria, L's wishes were to be taken into account and therefore the threshold in art 13 had been reached. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, with respect to remoteness, where contractual and tortious duties to take care in carrying out instructions existed side by side, the test for recoverability of damage for economic loss should be the same and should be the contractual one. Although the judge had applied the tortious test for remoteness, the same damages were recoverable applying the test for remoteness in contract. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by CEDC International sp. z o.o., (CEDC) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks ad Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between the predecessor to CEDC, Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA, concerning the registration by the former of a figurative sign consisting of the representation of a bovine animal, depicting the word 'WISENT'. 

Charging order – Land. The Chancery Division dismissed the appellants' appeal against the imposition of a charging order made over their property and the county court judge's refusal to grant them relief from sanctions. The court held that the judge had been fully justified in making the orders that it had. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal regarding dismissal of their application for declarations regarding the ownership of copyright in the music and lyrics of certain Bob Marley songs. On the true construction of an agreement which pre-dated the claimants' purported acquisition of copyright, a group of companies, of which the defendant company was a member, was the copyright owner of those works and there had been no error of law in the judge's interpretation of that agreement. 

Contempt of court – Publications concerning legal proceedings. The Divisional Court held that the defendant, Condé Nast, had been in contempt of court. Its publication of an article in GQ in the course of the phone-hacking trial had created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the trial would be seriously prejudiced or impeded. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by CEDC International sp. z o.o., (CEDC) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks ad Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between the predecessor to CEDC, Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA, concerning the registration by the former of a figurative sign consisting of the representation of a bovine animal, depicting the word 'WISENT'. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Supreme Court held, among other things, that the rule requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in the United Kingdom to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live in the UK was not an unjustified interference with rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered the claimant company's challenge to a patent that disclosed a second medical use of the drug atomoxetine, also known as tomoxetine, for use in treating ADHD. It held that, among other things, the patent was not obvious and nor insufficient, and hence the claim for revocation would be dismissed.