Trade mark Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court awarded the first claimant producer of 'Veuve Clicquot' champagne and the second claimant, Moet-Hennessey UK Ltd, damages of 125,000 for the infringement of United Kingdom and European Union registered trade marks and for passing off. The court held that, on the evidence, the defendants were jointly and severally liable for passing off and for certain acts of infringement, which had been outside of the scope of consent given for the use of those marks.
Equity Breach of confidence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against a decision of the Chancery Division, in which it was held that the defendant company had not misused confidential information in producing a television programme that was similar to an idea of the claimants'. Among other things, the judge's analysis had not been vitiated by errors of law, and he had not made wrong inferences.
Company Liquidator. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant insolvency practitioner's claim for an indemnity arising out of a partnership agreement. The court held that, on the true construction of the agreement, the partners of the firm in which the claimant worked were not bound to indemnify him in respect of the costs and expenses and-or any award made regarding an allegation that he and another had been guilty of misfeasance and-or in breach of fiduciary duty.
European Union Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the appeal by the European Commission to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union by which that Court had partially annulled the Commission's decision to refuse access to Volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by Germany as rapporteur member state for the active substance glyphosate, under . The Court held that part of the General Court's decision in respect of the first part of the Commission's single plea in law was vitiated by an error of law.
Brooks and another (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc in liquidation) v Armstrong and another
Liquidation Voluntary winding up. The Chancery Division allowed, in part, a cross-appeal by the directors of a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation against an order that they were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 35,000 for wrongful trading in respect of a company in liquidation. The directors had argued that the process by which the registrar had calculated the compensation payable by them had been unfair. The court held that the liquidators had failed, in the earlier proceedings, to advance and establish a properly formulated case that there had been any increase in net deficiency of the company during the period of wrongful trading, and that, on the approach adopted and facts found by the registrar, there had been no such increase. Accordingly, it held that the registrar should not have ordered any payment by the directors to the liquidators, under s214(a) of the .
Injunction Interlocutory. The Queen's Bench Division granted the claimant's application for the extension of an injunction which had prevented the defendant newspaper from publishing confidential or private information about him. However, the defendant was not prevented from using the relevant information in order to make its own investigations into the matter, which concerned alleged financial crimes.
Shipping Towage contract. The Commercial Court made rulings in a case concerning breach of contract in the towing of a vessel by the claimant's tug. The court held that, among other things, the claimant had repudiated the contract and the defendant companies had accepted the repudiation. The defendants were entitled to damages in respect of the additional costs of making alternative towing arrangements.
Criminal law Misconduct in public office. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed an appeal against conviction by a former junior crime reporter of The Sun newspaper, for an offence of encouraging a public officer to commit the offence of misconduct in public office, namely, by paying a then serving police officer for information, which followed, written articles. The court held that the jury had not been provided with legally adequate directions tailored to the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the conviction was unsafe and would be quashed.
McLean and another (as Joint Administrators of Dent Company (a partnership) (in administration)) v Berry and others
Equity Marshalling. The Chancery Division ruled on an application by the joint liquidators of a partnership (in administration) for directions, under para63 of SchB1 to the . The court held, among other things, that the fourth respondent, who had loaned money to the partnership, was entitled to claim the proceeds of assets subject to an agricultural charge by the application of the principle of 'marshalling' and to prove as an unsecured creditor in the administration for any shortfall, in circumstances where a bank had had the right to resort to two securities in support of its lending to the partnership and where the fourth respondent had had a right to resort to one security in support of her lending to the partnership, a company connected to the partners and to the partners personally. The court further held that the trustees in bankruptcy of the partners did not have a claim based on unjust enrichment and were not entitled to claim in the administration of the partnership by operation of the doctrine of subrogation.
*Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v AIG Europe Insurance Ltd (formerly known as Chartis Insurance (UK) Ltd)
Insurance Liability insurance. The Supreme Court held that Impact Funding Solutions Ltd (Impact) could not recover losses from professional indemnity insurers, AIG Europe Insurance Ltd (AIG), following the insolvency of a solicitors' firm that Impact had entered into contracts with, under which Impact had been responsible for disbursements incurred in actions brought by those solicitors' clients. The Court held that an exclusion clause in the insurance policy which AIG had written for the solicitors applied to defeat Impact's claim against AIG and that there was no basis for implying a restriction into that exclusion clause limiting its effect.