Latest Cases

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 13(1) of Directive (EC) 2004/48 should be interpreted as permitting a party injured by an intellectual property infringement, who claimed compensation for his material damage as calculated, in accordance with heading (b) of the second sub-paragraph of art 13(1) of that directive, on the basis of the amount of hypothetical royalties, also to claim compensation for the moral prejudice that he had suffered, as provided for under heading (a) of the second sub-paragraph of art 13(1) of that directive. 

Parent and child – Child protection – Grounds for referral to children's hearing. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal by a child's maternal grandmother, challenging the establishment of grounds for referral to a children's hearing, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff had failed to apply the correct test in relation to the particular ground found established, that his findings in fact were insufficient to entitle him to hold the ground for referral established, and that he had erred in the exercise of his discretion by allowing amendment to be made to the supporting facts once the evidence had been concluded and at the stage of closing submissions. 

Company – Administration order. The Chancery Division made a ruling with regard to the solvency of he defendant company, Lehman Brothers UK Holdings Ltd, which was in administration. The court held that the solvency condition in the standard terms of three loan agreements would be satisfied in the case of the defendant. As a result, the claimant company was entitled to the relief that it claimed as a creditor of the defendant. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that EU law should be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the applicable national law, a plea alleging infringement of national law raised for the first time before the national court hearing an appeal on a point of law was admissible only if that plea was based on public policy, a plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as guaranteed by EU law, raised for the first time before that same court, had to be held to be admissible if that right, as guaranteed by national law, satisfied the conditions required by national law for it to be classified as a plea based on public policy, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. 

Partnership – Existence of partnership disputed. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against a chief master's decision granting summary judgment to the defendants on the claimant's claim that a partnership had been created between the parties. The chief master had been entirely right to conclude that, on the evidence, no partnership had been created within the meaning of s 1(1) of the Partnership Act 1890. There was no evidence that the defendants had carried on business themselves and there was no realistic prospect of establishing that they had agreed to become partners for the purposes of the Act. 

Minor – Custody. The Family Division, on the father's application for the return to Ireland of his 13-year-old son, A, concluded that A's return to Ireland would be ordered, despite his objections. Among other things, it held that, against the expressed strength of A's objections, the countervailing considerations were compelling and the clear influence of the mother and of A's older half-brother upon the development of his objections could not be ignored. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the defendants' appeal against an employment tribunal's preliminary ruling that a limited company was entitled to bring proceedings alleging discrimination if it had suffered detrimental treatment because of an associated protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. 

Employment Tribunal – Practice. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal permitting an extension of time for an unfair dismissal claim to be brought out of time. The EAT remitted the case to the same tribunal for re-consideration. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign government. The Commercial Court adjourned a case concerning a dispute over which of two regimes was recognised as the government of Libya following the fall of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011. The dispute arose in respect of Libya's Sovereign Wealth Fund (LIA), which had assets of approximately US$67bn and in circumstances where, shortly before the trial was due to start, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had written to the court and the parties stating Her Majesty's Government's (HMG) position on the question of recognition. The court held, on a point of principle, that where the court had received a formal communication from the British government, it was that communication which was the voice of HMG for legal purposes and it was not open to the court to set aside the letter and look at other material in an attempt to identify what the position of HMG actually was. In the circumstances, it would be both contrary to principle and premature at the present time to rule on the issue as to the chairmanship of the LIA. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal striking out his claims of alleged detriments after being reinstated. The EAT held that the tribunal had erred or had reached a perverse conclusion in striking out the alleged unfair dismissal claim. The EAT concluded that the claims should go forward and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims.