Latest Cases

Claim form – Service. The Commercial Court considered whether the first defendant, M, had been validly served with proceedings by process servers. The court considered the wider issue of service by process servers and held that, although M spoke little English, in the circumstances, the gist of the situation had been conveyed to him by his English-speaking companions. M had been validly served with the claim form. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed the application of the Office of Public Guardian to revoke the Enduring Power of Attorney given by the patient S to her son M. In so doing, it found that on the facts, one would be hard pressed to find a more callous and calculating attorney, who had so flagrantly abused his position of trust. A panel deputy would be appointed as S's deputy. 

Bankruptcy – Administration in bankruptcy of estate of person dying insolvent. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the applicant's challenge to the appointment of trustees to the insolvent estate of Boris Berezovsky, held that the date of the debtor's death was the date at which the assets comprising the insolvent estate were identified, and as at which the debts and liabilities were identified and quantified. That included the conversion of foreign currency debts into sterling and the date up to which interest might be proved, and after which statutory interest ran. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2000/78. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Unland and the Land Berlin concerning the detailed rules governing the reclassification and career progression of judges in that region under the new remuneration system applicable to such judges. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division approved an agreed order with regard to the reporting of a case in which the local authority had initially sought to obtain a reporting restriction order. The court found it necessary to point out that it was important that if and when local authorities and the media came to realise that there was an issue between them about how much should be reportable and on what terms, there should be sensible and responsible dialogue as soon as possible, with a view to finding an early modus vivendi. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division found that, for the purposes of art 8 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (Brussels II), the place of habitual residence of the children with whom the proceedings were concerned was the United Kingdom. The UK was better placed to hear the evidence as, among other things, the options for the children's future care were not focused in Lithuania but in the UK.