Latest Cases

Divorce – Financial remedies. The husband's appeal against an order made in financial proceedings, on the day the decree nisi was made absolute, was dismissed. The order provided that, unless the husband, by a certain date, transferred the legal title to 42 properties from either the joint names of the parties or the wife's name into his sole name, and obtained the release of the wife from her obligations under the mortgages on the properties, they would be placed on the market for sale. The Family Division, in dismissing the appeal, rejected the husband's argument that the order, and a related deed, provided only for the transfer of the beneficial interest (and not the legal interest) in the properties. The court further held that the order had plainly been one within the judge's discretion, and that she had been right to find that the husband had not used his best endeavours to obtain the wife's release from the mortgages.

European Union – Trade marks. The Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (the Board) had erred in deciding that the element 'multiplus' did not have an independent distinctive role in the figurative marks 'SOLGAR Since 1947' and 'MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA' applied for, in particular, because it was not distinctive in relation to the goods covered by those marks. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Sona Nuitrition Ltd, established in Ireland, for annulment of the Board's decision to uphold the Opposition Division's decision to reject the oppositions to registration filed by that company.

Employment – Payment. Arrears of pay arising from an equal pay claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970, that had not yet been determined, constituted arrears of pay under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claims were for arrears of pay, each of them was a debt to which Part XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. Accordingly the Secretary of State was required to pay each claimant the amount to which she was entitled in respect of that debt.

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The judge had been right, both to extend time under CPR r 3.1(2)(a), and not to exercise his discretion to refuse relief under s 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, in relation to the respondent's challenge by judicial review against a planning permission granted more than five and half years before the claim was issued. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division refused the appellant's appeal against the judge's decision quashing planning permission granted by the second respondent local authority for the erection of three marquees on the appellant's land.

Family Proceedings – Orders in Family Proceedings. Whilst the first instance judge had correctly identified well-established principles in determining whether to grant an order of anonymity in proceedings concerning the variation of a trust of which minors were included as beneficiaries, the judge had focussed too narrowly on the issue of harm to the minor beneficiaries. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowing the appellant settlor's appeal against an order refusing anonymity, made an order pursuant to s 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 allowing identification of any party other than the minor beneficiaries.

Social Security – Severe disablement allowance. It was not established that the defendant Secretary of State had identified any reason that explained the different treatment of the severe disability premium natural migrant group from a group shielded against natural migration which would receive transitional protection as managed migrants. Accordingly, the Administrative Court granted the claimants a quashing order in respect of the draft Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, in so far as they inserted reg 64 of and Sch 2 to the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (SDP Gateway) Amendment Regulations 2019, SI 2019/10.

Extradition – Private and family life. The judge had given substantial weight to the public interest in fugitives not seeing the UK as a safe haven, which had been an irrelevant factor in the case, given his finding that the appellant had not been a fugitive. However, the Administrative Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve an activated suspended sentence of 10 months' imprisonment for theft of a mobile phone, held that the judge's decision, rejecting the appellant's private life claim, was not overall wrong.

Negligence – Professional negligence. The claimants brought a professional negligence claim, on behalf of the widow and estate of the deceased, against the defendant firm of solicitors that had been instructed to pursue a claim arising out of his death from asbestos related lung cancer. The claim had not proceeded after an unfavourable medical report had been obtained and it was contended that the solicitors had omitted highly material evidence when instructing the medical expert, and had then failed to notice that that had not been considered. Breach of duty was subsequently admitted. The Queen's Bench Division ruled that the claimants had lost something of real and substantial value through the defendant's negligence and that they were entitled to recover damages assessed in the sum of £104,283, together with interest to be assessed from 1 January 2014.

European Union – Air transport. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, had to be interpreted as meaning that damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object, such as loose debris, lying on an airport runway fell within the notion of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that provision. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the refusal by an air carrier to compensate a passenger for a long delay to his flight.

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant NHS trust, alleging that she had suffered a brachial plexus injury at her birth in 1992, as a result of negligence by a registrar (Dr D) and two midwives and who had attended her birth. The claim was brought more than 25 years after the alleged injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the facts, the claim, alleging excessive traction to the claimant's head at birth, necessarily failed in circumstances where the claimant had been delivered by Dr D, following a correct diagnosis of shoulder dystocia, using a combination of three techniques which had been accepted at the time as being appropriate.