Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Judgment had been given by a court in Moscow against the first defendant Russian founder of the first claimant bank, Sergei Pugachev, for approximately US$1.5bn, in respect of which an appeal was pending. The Chancery Division continued a freezing order, by consent, and made further orders in respect of the claimants' application for an extension a passport order in respect of Pugachev and for additional disclosure from a company associated with him. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (HP) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning an application by HP for registration of the word sign 'ELITEPAD' as a Community trade mark. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division dismissed the father's application, under the court's inherent jurisdiction, for an order that his child should move to live in Algeria and for a stay of the mother's proceedings in England. It held, among other things, that it was clearly not in a position to decide, on a summary basis, that it would be in the child's best interests to make the orders sought. To make a summary order uprooting her from her home and requiring her to move with her mother to Algeria would be contrary to her best interests. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Verus Eood against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Verus Eood and Joie International Co., Ltd, regarding the application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'MIRUS' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 20(2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 should be interpreted as precluding a defendant on whom a European order for payment had been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin had incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The present case concerned a pier, the freehold of which was owned by H until he was made bankrupt and the freehold vested in his trustee in bankruptcy. Among other things, the Chancery Division dismissed H's application for a vesting order, holding that it would not be appropriate in all the circumstances to make an order vesting in H the pier or any part of it. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division considered an application to strike out a large number of claims brought by Chinese parties in relation to alleged cartel activity by the first defendant airline and others. The court held that none of the claims had been properly commenced, and the entire action would be struck out. 

Practice – Costs. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed an application by the claimants, Caribbean property developer Harlequin and its operator, to vary an order for security for costs to take account of the claimants' increased disbursements. It ruled that it had no power to do so where the parties had, following the court's earlier judgment, amended an after the event (ATE) policy, which the claimants had offered as security, and had agreed to its terms. It would wrong to establish a precedent that, if one part of the preparation exercise costed the claimants more than they expected, the defendant should be penalised by having the level of its own security reduced. Further, disclosure was ordered where the administration of justice, and the need to dispose fairly of the issues in the present highly contentious case, outweighed any public interest in the withholding certain documents generated by a Serious Fraud Office investigation. 

Claim form – Service. The Admiralty Court considered a case where the claimant had accidentally issued a claim form in personam, instead of in rem, with the result that the claim form had expired much earlier, preventing proceedings from being properly issued. The court held that the best way to serve the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly was to remedy the error on terms that the claimants paid the costs of the application and the defendants' reasonable opposition thereto. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 1(2) and the first sub-paragraph of art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 should be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where the infringement of a provision of EU law had been discovered only after the occurrence of a prejudice, the limitation period began to run from the time when both the economic operator's act or omission that had infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the EU or budgets managed by it had occurred.