Latest Cases

Extradition – Prohibition on torture. The assurances offered in respect of each of the stages of the criminal proceedings which the appellant faced were satisfactory and appropriate in order to address the risk of ill-treatment arising from prison conditions and overcrowding in Romania. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed his appeal against orders for his extradition to Romania to stand trial for attempt to kidnap.

Will – Revocation. In circumstances where only a certified copy of the deceased's will had been found, the presumption in favour of the revocation of the will did not arise on the facts of the case, and there was insufficient evidence to find that the will had been revoked, as the claimant had contended. Accordingly, the Chancery Division ruled that it was appropriate to propound in favour of the certified copy of the will.

Contempt of court – Committal. The judge had erred in the way she had dealt with the alleged contempts of the third party director, both in making a committal order against the director, and in striking out the claimant company and the director's possession application, and their defence to the defendant's counterclaim. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeals of the director and the claimant and held that the claim and the counterclaim would be transferred for trial in front of a different judge.

Housing – Housing association. While the judge had not carried out a structured enquiry required by s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in regard to the appellant tenant's disability, believing that it was unnecessary, her judgment showed that she had regarded the enforcement of a possession order as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the tenant's appeal against the possession order granted to the respondent landlord.

Euuropean Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had been correct to uphold the opposition by TURBO-UK Ltd, established in the UK to the application by Turbo-K International Ltd (TKIL), also established in the UK, for registration of the word mark 'TURBO-UK' as an EU trade mark. The conditions of an action for passing-off and those of art 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) had been met. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union dismissed TKIL's action for annulment of the Board's decision.

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The first subparagraph of art 157(1) of Directive (EC) 2009/138, as amended by Directive (EU) 2013/58, read in conjunction with art 13(13) of Directive 2009/138, should be interpreted as meaning that, when an insurance company established in a member state offered insurance covering the contractual risks associated with the value of the shares and the fairness of the purchase price paid by the buyer in the acquisition of an undertaking, an insurance contract concluded in that context was subject exclusively to the indirect taxes and parafiscal charges on insurance premiums in the member state where the policyholder was established. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings brought by an insurance company regarding a request for a tax ruling which it had made to the Central Tax Board, Finland, relating to determining which member state had power to impose tax on insurance premiums.

Trade mark – Infringement. The application of the first to third defendants (the RCB defendants) failed and the application of the claimants succeeded in a dispute concerning alleged infringement of trade marks. The Chancery Division held that the RCB defendants had not come anywhere near demonstrating that the present case was a clear and obvious case of abuse of process, and hence their application to strike out the claim failed. Further, the relevant mark was not deceptive, even on the facts as claimed by the RCB defendants, and therefore summary judgment would be granted in favour of the claimants on their counterclaim.

Criminal law – Stalking. The prosecution evidence had not established more than one occasion on which the justices could be sure the victim had been induced to feel fear of physical violence by the actions of the appellant. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal by way of case stated for stalking involving fear of violence, held that the offence required proof of a specific state of mind on the part of the victim, not merely proof of circumstances which might reasonably engender that state of mind.

Libel and slander – Meaning. In the claimant's libel and malicious falsehood proceedings against the defendants, the Queen's Bench Division ruled on preliminary issues, namely: (i) the assessment of the natural and ordinary meaning for the purposes of libel; (ii) whether that meaning was fact and/or opinion; (iii) whether the meaning raised the inference of serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013; and (iv) whether the meanings advanced by the claimant were capable meanings for the purposes of the malicious falsehood claim.

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Confidential documents. The Commercial Court made rulings concerning two applications for the disclosure of information in the course of proceedings. The proceedings concerned the proposed public takeover of the first defendant energy company by another company. The court made findings as to the confidentiality of the instructions from the company financing the purchase to its solicitors.