The full judgment in Simply Pleasure’s challenge to local authorities charging fees that could be used to pay for enforcing a regulatory regime.
The Court of Appeal considered appeals by both parties in proceedings brought by the Mattel, which controlled the rights in the well-known game Scrabble in the European Union, to prevent the respondent company (Zynga) from selling an electronic game called Scramble or Scramble with Friends.
The Supreme Court held that none of the exceptions to the general approach applicable to awards of costs in children’s cases as set out in Re T (Children)  applied in the present case.
The court had booked two interpreters, but they were not provided and a hearing was adjourned. The local authority sought recovery of its costs of that hearing against Capita, which is contracted to provide interpreters.
Following concerns about the safety of the claimant’s factory in Bangladesh, Primark withdrew its outstanding contracts with the claimant. The claimant brought a claim for damages for alleged defamatory statements published by Primark. Primark applied for the claim to be struck out as an abuse of process.
Prisoners complained that they were prevented from voting in elections, relying on article 3 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in allowing the application, held that there had been a violation of article 3, given that the impugned legislation remained unamended after the court’s decision in Greens v United Kingdom .
G-Star brought proceedings against the defendants, alleging that they had been involved in alleged infringement in the UK unregistered design rights in the design of a pair of jeans.
The defendant disputed the costs that related to the period when the claimant had been acting through a deputy appointed on her behalf.
In claims by many hundreds of Iraqi civilians against the defendant Ministry of Defence for damages for their allegedly unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces, the preliminary issue was whether the claims were barred by an applicable statute of limitations.
The claimant issued proceedings against Sotheby’s alleging negligence in its investigation of a painting, which is purported to be by Caravaggio.
The claimant Law Society applied for an injunction making permanent prohibitions against the defendant, S, to prevent him holding himself out as a solicitor or becoming involved with legal work.
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (the trust) against certain orders for costs made during the course of proceedings in respect of the administration of the estate of Jimmy Savile. Its appeal against various other orders was dismissed.
In the course of litigation following ‘Plebgate’, the claimant police officers sought judicial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s decision to re-determine the mode of investigation of them.
Certain preliminary issues came to be tried in more than 600 High Court cases in which Iraqi civilians are claiming damages from the Ministry of Defence for their allegedly unlawful detention and alleged ill-treatment by British armed forces in Iraq.
In financial proceedings the Family Division imposed a costs penalty on the husband. The judge commented on the scale of the costs incurred by the parties, which he described as ‘totally disproportionate’.
Maryam Rajavi, the exiled Iranian politician, appeals against the home secretary’s decision to ban her from entering the UK on the ground that her presence would not be conducive to the public good.
The ‘Naked Rambler’ issued proceedings concerning his arrests, prosecutions, convictions and sentences of imprisonment, invoking, in particular, articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The employment tribunal found that, when the appellant was providing her services through a limited company for the purpose of selling Shiseido cosmetic products in a duty-free outlet managed by the respondent, she was not an employee of the respondent for the purposes of section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
The proceedings arose out of a serious fire at the Sugar Hut Club, Essex in 2009. A dispute arose as to, among other things, the amount of business interruption losses to which the claimants were entitled. In particular, the parties disagreed as to the calculation of the overall loss of turnover.
Following a previous judgment on questions of law in deprivation of liberty cases involving adults who lacked capacity, the Court of Protection supplemented and elaborated on some of those questions.
The court found a judge had erred in ordering revocation of a Specsavers trademark where evidence that use of the wordless logo together with the registered word trademark superimposed over the top had served to identify the goods.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed an appeal against convictions for robbery, in circumstances where the evidence that had been critical to the convictions related to admissions allegedly made to police officers who were part of a now-discredited crime squad.
A dispute arose over the pop track Heartbroken and at an earlier hearing a judge held that the performer’s rights relating to the vocal at the centre of the dispute belonged to the claimant. These proceedings concerned damages.
The Family Division held that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 did not have the effect of preventing the court from making a parental order.
The claimants sought judicial review of the lord chancellor’s decisions that there would be 525 duty provider work contracts and an average immediate reduction of 8.75% in criminal legal aid fees.
Skyscanner appealed against the Office of Fair Trading’s decision, accepting commitments from intervening companies in the hotel industry to modify their behaviour by limited discounting of room-only rates to closed groups.
A full report of the judgment in the costs case related to Marley v Rawlings, in which parents had each signed the wrong mirror will.
The claimant Pakistani national challenged the home secretary’s refusal of a British passport to which she claimed to be entitled as a British citizen by descent.
The Commercial Court dismissed the claimants’ application for an injunction pursuant to section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to restrain the first defendant from pursuing or taking any step in proceedings commenced against the second and third claimants in the supreme court of New York.
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on an appeal by Bookit Ltd against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners which had decided that credit and debit card handling fees were not exempt from a European directive and should be standard rated.
The claimant had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. The claimant and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation.
The first claimant owned two UK patents for an invention entitled ‘flying shark’ and the second claimant was the exclusive licensee of the first claimant in respect of both patents. The defendant devised and imported toys for sale in the UK, in particular, flying fish known as ‘mega fliers’.
Applicant prisoners lodge applications against UK, complaining they are prevented from voting in European Parliament elections
In this adoption application, the parent and step-parent of a child applied to the court to adopt a mother’s two children (by different fathers). The trial judge refused application so the father appealed.
In a case management conference regarding two libel actions concerning the events that happened when the claimant was leaving Downing Street with his bicycle, the Queen’s Bench Division approved the parties’ proposals that the action should be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision by Transport for London not to allow the Christian organisation’s advertisement to appear on its buses, on the basis that the decision had been made for the improper purpose of advancing the second defendant mayor’s electoral campaign.
The case returned to the employment tribunal (the tribunal) for a decision as to whether the selection by the employer solicitors’ firm of the compulsory age of 65 for retirement had been proportionate to achieve its aims of retention and workforce planning.
The claimant sought judicial review of the secretary of state’s proposal, by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014, to introduce a residence test for cases most in need of public funding.
The defendant secretary of state had policies concerning the holding of information of the claimant’s gender reassignment. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the secretary of state’s policies were unlawful.
A British national, was in prison in Bali, Indonesia, awaiting execution by firing squad, following her conviction for drug offences. The defendant secretary of state had provided substantial consular assistance, but he had declined to pay for legal help, relying on what was said to be a rigid policy. The appellant issued judicial review proceedings in England, challenging the validity of the secretary of state’s policy.
A request had been made in proceedings between Apple and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, concerning the latter’s rejection of an application by Apple for registration of a trademark.
There was an application before the court in respect of DD, a 36-year-old woman with learning difficulties, who was pregnant with her sixth child. The applicants sought for declarations and orders in relation to the care and health of DD during the final stage of her current pregnancy, and in the safe delivery of the unborn baby. The applicants applied for a further order authorising the conduct of an assessment of DD’s capacity to make decisions about contraception, following the imminent ...
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in which the FTT had decided that a penalty paid by McLaren Racing Ltd for a breach of sporting code of the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile was deductible by McLaren in computing its taxable profits.
The police had been called to an incident in which the appellant had been implicated. The officer had blocked the appellant in a doorway and told him to calm down otherwise he would be arrested.
The parents of a child SR born in 2011 opposed the making of an adoption order in favour of the proposed adopters. The Family Division held that there was only one route which would sufficiently safeguard the welfare of SR and that was the route of adoption.
Six claims were heard together in which each claimant challenged the defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework’s decisions refusing to grant legal aid in respect of their immigration proceedings.
The defendants (AB and CD) both faced charges of having committed offences contrary to s 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The claimant made and sold hair oil under the name Moroccanoil and the defendant, Aldi, sold hair oil called Miracle Oil. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for passing off.
The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor.
The claimant companies owned the copyright to many films and television programmes. They brought proceedings against the first defendant, H, and companies alleged to have been controlled by him, contending that he had been responsible for large-scale copyright fraud.