Latest Cases

Company – Share purchase agreement. The first defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claimant companies' claim for damages for, among other things, deceit in relation to the alleged misrepresentation of the financial circumstances of the first claimant company following the entry by the second claimant company into a share purchase agreement for the purchase of the first claimant's holding company. Consequently, the Commercial Court granted summary judgment on the first claimant's claim for damages against the first defendant. However, the court was not prepared to decide any other points on a summary basis, including the first defendant's counterclaim and additional claim.

European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had been right to decide that there had been a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public between the figurative sign 'SkyPrivate' sought to be registered by the applicant and the earlier UK word mark 'SKY', registered by the intervener company, Sky Ltd, established in the UK. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's application for annulment of the Board's decision to uphold the intervener's opposition to registration of the applicant's mark.

Contempt – Committal. The appellant insurance company's appeal succeeded, against a decision of a judge of the High Court not to allow it to commence committal proceedings against the respondent. The respondent had issued personal injury proceedings, but had discontinued them after evidence had emerged of him having made false statements. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in principle in his approach to the exercise of his discretion.

Housing – Local authority houses. The examples in the defendant local authority's housing allocation scheme, which set out those who did not qualify for entry onto the housing register, had either or both applied in the claimant's case. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review of the authority's decisions that he was not qualified for the allocation of housing, further held that the exclusions from the exemption had not applied.

Extradition – Prohibition on torture. None of the evidence on which the appellant relied demonstrated a real risk of breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if she was accommodated in the women's district in Fleury-Merogis or Fresnes prisons. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed her appeal against orders for her extradition to France for offences concerning the manufacture and sale, through the internet, without proper marketing authorisation, of two products, presented as medicine, which had been advertised as having 'preventive or curative effects on human pathologies'.

Housing – Housing Association. The tenant's appeal against a decision, granting the respondent housing association (the landlord) possession of a property, was dismissed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the landlord had complied with its public sector equality duty (PSED) under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010, in circumstances where the evidence of the tenant's disability had been revealed very late in the day, as a result of which, the steps required to fulfil the duty had required considerably less formality than would otherwise have been the case. The Queen's Bench, in so ruling, considered factors relevant to the PSED in the context of possession cases and ruled, among other things, that the engagement of the PSED was not a trump card which mandated the giving of directions, rather than the summary disposal of the proceedings.

Negligence – Damages. The claimant, who contracted mesothelioma as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos, was awarded £95,000 for pain suffering and loss of amenity against his previous employer, the defendant company. He had previously obtained judgment for damages against the defendant, to be assessed, and the latter had been required to make an interim payment on account of damages of £200,000, and a sum on account of costs. The Queen's Bench Division further ruled on what damages, if any, the claimant was entitled to for 'lost years'.

Company – Liquidator. The appellant companies' appeal failed, in a dispute concerning three companies linked to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme fraud, in which they sought an anti-suit injunction from the BVI courts to restrain the liquidators of the first respondent company from proceeding with their claims in the US. The Privy Council held that s 249 of the British Virgin Islands Insolvency Act 2003 did not, either expressly or by necessary implication, confer an exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court so as to preclude foreign courts, which assisted in a BVI liquidation, from granting relief enabling it to alter the consequences of concluded transactions which would otherwise remain binding on an insolvent company.

Data protection – Processing of information. There had been a breach of the claimant there had been a breach of the claimant's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 by the sharing of information about her vulnerability and risk of sexual exploitation. However, the Administrative Court found that the defendant Chief Constable's information sharing agreement did not fail to provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the unlawful processing of the claimant's sensitive personal data and there sharing of other data had not been unlawful.

Practice – Criminal appeals. As the decision in the case concerned a criminal cause or matter, s 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 applied, and, accordingly, no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, from the refusal to give permission to apply for judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, further added some wider observations about appeals from judgments in criminal causes or matters.