References:  UKPC 11,
Arrest of two filmmakers: Menie Estate – On 31 October 2012, Mr Edwards asked the Chief Constable of Police Scotland (the Police) for information about the arrest of two filmmakers at the Menie Estate. The Police withheld the information on the basis that it was exempt under FOISA.
The Commissioner investigated Mr Edward’s application. During the investigation, the Police disclosed further information. Following the investigation, the Commissioner found that the Police were entitled to withhold the remaining information under sections 34(1) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA as it comprised, respectively, information held by the Police for the purposes of a criminal investigation, and personal data, disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle.
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus convention.Court: SC
Trade Mark: Appointed Person – Ex Parte HearingsCourt: IPO
The pursuers seek payment by the defenders of £812,718, all in respect of damages for an alleged breach of contract. In order to carry out road maintenance work, Tayside Contracts purchased crushed stone from the defenders to be used in the surface dressing of roads. The claim is that loss was caused by the stone being disconform to contract.Court: SCS
SIC Complaints against school departments: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 19 February 2014, Dr Dunbar asked Scottish Borders Council (the Council) for information concerning complaints made against school departments in each of the previous five years. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply with Dr Dunbar’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.
The applicant complained, in particular, poor prison conditions he suffered in prison Colibasi and lack of adequate medical treatment in detention for his disease.Court: ECHR
IPO (Patent) An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Deutsches Zentrum Fur Luft-Und Raumfahrt E.V. and Dr.-Ing. Michael Meyer zu Horste under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Dr.-Ing. Michael Meyer zu Horste should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Malte Hammerl, Anna Schieben and Frank Flemisch in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published patent application and granted patent for the invention.Court: IPO
Reasonable excuse appeal against surcharge assessment.Court: VDT
(Trade Mark: Opposition)Court: IPO
Decision on application too review – The decision of the review is that the figures set out in the decision dated 5 January 2010 are amended to show the entitlement of the claimant is a Redundancy Payment of £1320 and Notice Pay of £876.76.Court: NIIT
Mr Croke renewed his application for permission to challenge the decision of the Crown Court to refuse to state a case following the dismissal by the court of his appeal against conviction by the Magistrates of two offences of assault by beating, battery, contrary to section 39 of the 1988 Act of two security guards who were escorting him off the Great George Street premises of Leeds City Council, he having been previously barred by the council from the premises, or at least, on his understanding, from part of the premises.Court: Admn
This appeal raises a number of points in connection with the law of private nuisance, a common law tortCourt: SC