Latest Cases

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that where two actions — which had different subject-matters and bases and which were not connected by a link of subordination or incompatibility — were brought against several defendants, the fact that the upholding of one of those actions was potentially capable of affecting the extent of the right whose protection was sought by the other action did not suffice to give rise to a risk of irreconcilable judgments within the meaning of that provision. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division made rulings in a case concerning the disclosure of information about the running of a trust to the claimant, who was the daughter of the testatrix. As disclosure had occurred, only costs remained. The court held that the costs of both parties would be paid out of the trust fund, in each case on the indemnity basis. It further considered the extent to which trustees could seek to claim privilege as against beneficiaries in relation to certain documents and what, if anything, the defendants would be entitled to recover if they had been ordered to pay the costs of the claimant. 

Contract – Formation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the judge's decision that there had been a binding contract between the parties, formed by the claimant (Reveille) accepting through conduct a written agreement, which had been signed by the defendant (Anotech), but not Reveille. It held that Reveille had waived the provision that there would be no binding contract in the absence of its signature on the agreement, and there had been no prejudice from that to Anotech. There had been acceptance by conduct on Reveille's part of the terms of the agreement, which had led to a binding contract. 

Patent – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, in dismissing Saertex France SAS' claim for infringement of a patent concerning a method of manufacture of fibre-based reinforcements, ruled that the patent was invalid, both as granted and as conditionally proposed to be amended, for lack of novelty and inventive step. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant developer's appeal against orders upholding the defendant local planning authority's adoption of the 'Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies' and dismissing its claim for judicial review of the authority's adoption of its community infrastructure levy charging schedule. In respect of the former, it held that there had been no error of law in the inspector's conclusion that, with the proposed main modifications, the local plan part 2 had been sound. 

Post – Postal operator. The Administrative Court dismissed the judicial review proceedings commenced by the claimant international door-to-door courier of goods (DHL) against the information request served on it by the defendant Ofcom. DHL was a 'postal operator', within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2011, and the request was not a nullity or disproportionate. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £2,785. The claimant suffered soft tissue injuries when his vehicle collided with the defendant's vehicle. The defendant was found liable. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. In the claimant indeterminate sentence prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to transfer him from open conditions back to closed conditions, following the introduction of a 'new absconder policy', the Administrative Court held that fairness had demanded that, after his return, the claimant be given sufficient reasons for the decision and an opportunity to make meaningful representations. However, subject to further argument, it was minded not to grant relief. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division ruled, in respect of a proposed transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Halcrow pension scheme to a new occupational pension scheme, that reg 12(3) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991, SI 1991/167, should not be construed in a way which required the actuary to consider the security of the benefits in the transferring and receiving scheme when giving a certificate under that regulation. Further, it held that there was no scope for a different construction or analysis of reg 12(3) where the transferring scheme was in winding up from the situation where it was ongoing. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal and applications concerning the appropriate orders for costs following the respondent Secretary of State's withdrawal of her certification of human rights claims, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in EM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2014] 2 All ER 192).