Latest Cases

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve two years and six months' imprisonment for three offences of fraud. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, as it had not been established that the appellant had been served with two summonses, it was not established that his absence from the trial had been deliberate. The appellant's extradition was barred, by virtue of s 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, because he would not be entitled to a retrial if returned. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal against an order dismissing his application for committal of the mother for breach of an order requiring her to return two of their teenage children to Spain. In the circumstances, it had not been established that the order had been wrong. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precluded legislation of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of the taxation of a group of companies, allowed a parent company, in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a resident company which became a member of such a group, to depreciate the goodwill up to a maximum of 50% of the purchase price of the holding, while such depreciation was prohibited in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a non-resident company. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court held that the District judge had been correct in concluding that G, who had been charged in the United States with a number of serious sexual offences allegedly committed against an adolescent boy, would be at risk of being made subject to an order for civil commitment under the system which operated in California and that such an order would be a 'flagrant breach' of his rights under art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court dismissed the second and third respondents' application to use funds in an account for the funding of the defence of the action against them despite the fact that there was a world wide freezing order in place against them. Both the evidence and the overall justice of the case demanded that result. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division upheld the claimant's challenge under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and under art 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (Council Regulation 207/2009) to the invalidity of the first defendant's mark CRISTALINO JAUME SERRA in relation to, amongst other things, sparkling wines and wines. That decision was based on the fact the claimant's mark CRISTAL had a strong reputation in the United Kingdom and due to the similarity of the signs there would be confusion resulting in dilution and detriment to the distinctiveness of the mark. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The respondent applied for reconsideration of two orders that, first, discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and, secondly, appointed a panel deputy to act in his place. The Court of Protection, in setting aside the orders and reinstating the respondent as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs, held that the respondent had not had behaved, or proposed to behave, in a way that contravened the authority conferred on him by the court, or was not in his daughter's best interests. 

Warranty – Breach. The Chancery Division dismissed both the claimants' claim and the defendants' counterclaim, where the first defendant, S, and the first claimant, M, had entered business together but had fallen out over the work done by S. The court held that S had not acted in breach of warranty, and that the claimants were not responsible for the torts alleged in the counterclaim. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things that art 5(2) of Directive (EC) 2003/4 should be interpreted as meaning that the charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information could not include any part of the cost of maintaining a database, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for that purpose by the public authority, but could include the overheads attributable to the time spent by the staff of the public authority on answering individual requests for information, properly taken into account in fixing the charge, provided that the total amount of the charge did not exceed a reasonable amount. 

Trade mark – European Community. The Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the defendant companies' use of the word 'FLYNN' when rebranding imported Epanutin, a drug used in the treatment of epilepsy, was a 'trade mark use' and did not fall within s 11(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and, therefore infringed the claimant company's trade mark. The defendants could only rely on art 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to defeat the claim of infringement if they could show that Epanutin had been placed on the market in the exporting member state by the same entity seeking to prevent its import into the United Kingdom and they had failed to do so.