Latest Cases

Trade Dispute – Acts done in contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute. Birmingham City Council (BCC) unsuccessfully applied for an injunction to restrain two trade unions (Unite and UNISON, together, the defendants), which represented members employed by BCC, from calling industrial action over a pay dispute. The Queen's Bench Division held, among other things, that it was more likely than not that the defendants would succeed at the trial of the action in establishing that the protection in s 219 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, concerning an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, would apply. Accordingly, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

Criminal procedure – Leave to appeal – Compatibility issue – Sift decision of Sheriff Appeal Court ('SAC') – Petition to nobile officium – Competency. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing the prayer of a petition by a petitioner who was convicted in the sheriff court of sending a grossly offensive and threatening video via a public electronic communications network, who was refused leave to appeal by the SAC at first and second sifts, and who contended that there was a legislative lacuna which required to be filled by using the nobile officium of the High Court to grant (or not grant) permission to appeal from the SAC's sift decision on a compatibility issue directly to the Supreme Court, the court held that the petition was both incompetent and irrelevant: the test for the application of the nobile officium had not been met; an appellate route from summary decisions of the sheriff already existed in statute and the petitioner's attempt to appeal had failed because he did not meet the statutory criteria; the High court had no power to grant leave to appeal from a sift decision of the SAC direct to the Supreme Court.

Judicial review – Judicial review procedure – Permission stage – Oral hearing – Right to fair hearing. Court of Session: Refusing three judicial review petitions in which the petitioners, who had previously lodged petitions for judicial review in which permission was refused on the papers and a request for review at an oral hearing was then also refused, complained that a procedure whereby a petition could be determined adversely to the petitioner by refusal of permission without any oral hearing on the question of permission, and without a right of appeal, was not compatible with their rights to a fair hearing, the court held that the potential absence of an oral hearing and/or appeal were not inconsistent with the petitioners' rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Financial services – European Union. Article 74(2) of Directive (EC) 2007/64, amending some EU Directives and repealing Directive (EC) 97/5, should be interpreted as meaning that, when a payment order was executed in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user, which did not correspond to the payee name indicated by that user, the limitation of payment service provider liability, provided for by that article, applied to both the payer's and the payee's payment service provider. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings concerning the payment of a sum of money to the incorrect payee on account of an incorrect unique identifier provided by the payer.

Easement – Right of way. The respondents had applied to the Land Registry to register a right to use two parking places in the car park of a property, owned by the first appellant company which was adjacent to theirs, together with a right of way necessary to gain access to the parking places. The matter was eventully referred to the First-tier Tribunal (Land Registration Chamber)(the FTT), which held that there was an equitable easement in favour of the respondents. On appeal from the FTT's decision, the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) affirmed the FTT's decision on other grounds, deciding that although the judge's decision regarding the existence of an equitable easement could not stand, there was an implied easement in the respondent's favour under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows[1874-80] All ER Rep 669.

European Union – Trade marks. The First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had correctly upheld the appeal by Entertainment One UK Ltd, established in the UK, and a related company against the decision by EUIPO's Cancellation Division to reject that company's declaration of invalidity in relation to a figurative mark 'TOBBIA', registered by the applicant company. The Board had correctly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between that mark and an earlier EU figurative mark 'Peppa Pig'. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's action for annulment of the Board's decision.

Barrister – Refusal of admission to Bar. In 1986, the appellant was convicted of the murders of ten persons, including the then Prime Minister of Grenada, following a coup on the island. He unsuccessfully appealed against the refusal of the Supreme Court of Grenada and the West Indies Associated States High Court of Justice, as upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Easter Caribbean Supreme Court, to admit him to the Bar of Grenada, under s 17(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2011. The Privy Council held that, while the fact that the appellant was currently a man of good standing in the community was a necessary requirement for the good character condition for admission to the Bar of Grenada to be satisfied, it was not, in itself, enough. Public confidence in the profession had also to be considered. Accordingly, the court held that, the Supreme Court judge had not erred in her assessment that there was sufficient risk that public confidence in the legal profession would be damaged by acceding to the appellant's application, because the facet of the good character condition had not been met.

Company – Director. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the seventh and eighth defendants had acted in dishonest breach of duty in causing the claimant company to pay more for an oil rig than the price for which it had been sold, and in taking advantage of the cancellation of the purchase agreement, and failing to return sums to the claimant. The existence of sanctions with Iran did not make it contrary to the public interest to enforce the claimant's claim.

Landlord and tenant – Action for possession. The appellant company's appeal against a decision of the Deputy District Judge succeeded, in a case concerning the repossession of a property of which the respondent was a tenant. The central issue was whether a landlord was precluded by cause of action estoppel from obtaining an order for possession of property by reason of the tenant's non-payment of rent when there was an existing undischarged order for payment of earlier arrears and for possession for non-payment of those arrears. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, among other things, the causes of action entitling the relevant local authority to an earlier possession order and the appellant to the 2017 order had not been the same or even substantially the same. The proceedings were not barred by cause of action estoppel.

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant court's decision, that the claimant's trial for driving with excess alcohol would go ahead on the date fixed at which the prosecution expert could attend and the defence expert (whose report had been served in good time) could not, had been unsustainable. The Divisional Court, having set out exceptional circumstances in which judicial review might be an appropriate means to challenge a decision as to an adjournment, held that the present was an exceptional case in which the court should intervene at the pre-trial stage.