Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtparkasse Magdeburg

European Union Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that of Directive (EC) 2004-48 had to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allowed, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide, pursuant to art 8(1)(c) of that directive, information concerning the name and address of an account holder.

Dennekamp v European Parliament

European Union European institutions. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp for annulment of Decision A(2012) 13180 of the European Parliament refusing to grant him access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme. The General Court decided that the contested decision would be annulled in so far as the European Parliament had refused to grant access to the names of the MEPs who had been members of the scheme. However, the action would be dismissed as to the remainder.

R (on the application of AB) v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary

Human Rights Right to respect for private and family life. The present judicial review proceedings concerned the lawfulness of the disclosure, by the police to a local authority designated officer, of non-conviction material relating to alleged sexual misconduct by the claimant teacher and the subsequent dismissal of his complaint concerning the disclosure. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision to disclose had been unlawful, as it had failed to have sufficient regard to the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the failure to conduct an appropriate and sufficient investigation was so procedurally unfair as to render the resulting decision unlawful.

Allfiled UK Ltd v Eltis and others

Confidential information Interlocutory injunction. The claimant company, Allfiled, brought proceedings alleging that the defendants, three of whom were former directors of Allfiled, had conspired to set up their own business and had caused employees to leave Allfiled. It sought interlocutory injunctive relief against the defendants pending trial or further order, to prevent them from using, disclosing or disseminating Allfiled's confidential information and intellectual property. The Chancery Division made an order accordingly.

*Dransfield v Information Commission and another; Craven v Information Commissioner and another

Freedom of information Request. Two appeals were heard together as they concerned common issues regarding s14 of the . In the second appeal, issues arose regarding requests for information made under reg12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI2004-331. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the meaning of 'vexatious' and 'manifestly unreasonable' and whether past requests could be taken into account in considering whether a fresh request was vexatious.

National Crime Agency v Atkinson and another

Proceeds of crime Unlawful conduct. The second defendant objected to the inclusion of the matrimonial home in the claimant National Crime Agency's application for a civil recovery order (CRO) in respect of seven properties, four bank accounts and a Rolex watch. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was an overwhelming case against the first defendant for misconduct consisting of drug-dealing, money laundering and mortgage fraud, such that all the property was recoverable. With respect to the matrimonial home, the statutory exception to its inclusion in the CRO in s266 of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 had not been made out.

Barton v Royal Borough of Greenwich

Employment Dismissal. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for wrongful dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and whistle blowing claims. On appeal by the employee against those findings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision, taking the view, among other things, that the employee had been unable to demonstrate that the tribunal had fallen into error in finding that the matters relied on by the employee did not constitute protected disclosures.

H v United States of America

Extradition Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision, finding that the various procedural requirements were established for her extradition to the United States to face trial for manufacture, importation and distribution of steroids and human growth hormones, and money laundering offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant's family life, together with that of her daughter, contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, it would not be oppressive, given her mental condition and risk of suicide.

*Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v Information Commissioner and another

Freedom of Information Information. A journalist had requested copies of the invoices submitted in support of expenses claims made by Members of Parliament. Rather than providing copies, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) transcribed the information from the invoices and provided that. The Information Commissioner determined that there had been information contained within the invoices over and above that included in the transcripts, and the failure to provide the invoices themselves had been a breach of s1(1) of the . That determination was upheld on appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, having considered what was meant by 'information' and the means of communication required of a public authority in complying with its duty, dismissed the IPSA's appeal for the reasons given by the Commissioner.

*R v GH

Criminal law Proceeds of crime. The Supreme Court, in allowing the prosecution's appeal, held that an arrangement between a fraudster (B), who had allegedly duped victims into buying into non-existent motor insurance, and the defendant, who had set up two bank accounts into which the victims had paid money, was capable of constituting an offence under of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Accordingly, a ruling by a trial judge that the defendant had no case to answer, which had been upheld in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, was erroneous. What rendered the property 'criminal property' in the present case was not the arrangement made between B and the defendant, but the fact that it had been obtained from the victims by deception.