Latest Cases

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 5(3) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 261/2004 had to be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which had occurred unexpectedly, which was not attributable to poor maintenance and which had also not been detected during routine maintenance checks, did not fall within the definition of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that provision. 

European Union – Community trade mark. The Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to the extent that it upheld an appeal by a bank, which had opposed the registration of the applicant's trade mark on the basis of an earlier mark, in respect of real estate services covered by the applicant's trade mark. There was no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue in respect of the real estate services covered by the Community trade mark application. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to face trial for an offence against the credibility of documents, allegedly committed between July 2001 and April 2003. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, rejected allegations of ambiguity in the European arrest warrant, culpable delay, erroneous treatment of his argument based on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and proportionality, including the availability of less coercive measures. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant was entitled to summary judgment on his application to enforce an adjudication decision. It held that, both for reasons of principle and pragmatism, at least in a case where there could be no doubt that the adjudicator, if properly informed, should and would have concluded that he had had jurisdiction and the proper basis of jurisdiction did not make a difference to the substantive outcome, the court should not shut out a claimant who came to the court to enforce the adjudicator's decision. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division ruled that, applying the core principle of the Brussels Convention that people should be sued in their home state, and applying settled law, the English court had no jurisdiction to hear a claim for a declaration of non-infringement of any Community design right or any UK unregistered design right vested in the defendant, Logitech, a Swiss company, in respect of its impact protection cases for iPads. However, the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim in respect of a threat to bring infringement proceedings in the English courts allegedly made on behalf of Logitech against the claimant company. 

Landlord and tenant – Possession. The claimants sought to recover damages as a consequence of the second defendant's re-possession of a farm, which they alleged had been unlawful. The Queen's Bench Division held, among other things, that the claimants had not established an estoppel by representation against the second defendant and it followed that the claimants could not contend that the second defendant had gone into possession of the farm unlawfully. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union rejected the applicant company's claims seeking the annulment of the respondent European Commission's decision that it had been involved in two cartels and its claim seeking the reduction of the fines imposed. 

Immigration – Expulsion – Right to family life. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by an Indian national for whom removal directions had been set, who challenged a decision to certify his human rights claim as clearly unfounded, the court held that the court's function when determining the legality of a certificate under s 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was one of review, that there was no material error of law in the decision-maker not carrying out an assessment of the petitioner's claim outwith the Immigration Rules, and although the decision letter lacked a clear statement that the decision-maker had concluded that there was no need to go outwith the rules, that error of law was not material. 

Judicial review – Act of Scottish Parliament – Human rights – Data protection. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, the court held: (1) that the Lord Ordinary applied the correct test as regards the standing of the first to fourth petitioners, although it disagreed with his conclusion that they lacked sufficient interest to pursue the alleged contraventions of EU law or breaches of fundamental rights; (2) that the named person service provisions in Pt 4 of the Act were not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and hence beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament; and (3) the challenges to the information sharing and disclosure provisions in the Act must be rejected. 

European Union – Civil and commercial matters. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 had to be interpreted as meaning that: – the receiving agency was required, in all circumstances and without it having a margin of discretion in that regard, to inform the addressee of a document of his right to refuse to accept that document, by using systematically for that purpose the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation, and – the fact that that agency, when serving a document on its addressee, failed to enclose the standard form set out in Annex II to the Regulation, did not constitute a ground for the procedure to be declared invalid, but an omission which should be rectified in accordance with the provisions set out in that regulation.