Latest Cases

Practice – Chancery Division. The Chancery Division allowed an application to transfer a case to the Shorter Trial Scheme. In doing so, the court gave guidance on the court's jurisdiction to transfer an existing case in or out of the scheme. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court, on the claimant's application for summary judgment to enforce a decision of an adjudicator, held that, as it had rejected the defendant's challenges to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator and its complaint that the adjudicator had wrongly decided the question of whether the relevant application for payment had been withdrawn, there had to be summary judgment for the claimant as claimed. The present was not one of the rare cases in which there should be a stay of enforcement of any part of the judgment sum. 

Insolvency – Voluntary arrangement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the refusal to set aside an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). The judge had given the debtor's modified proposal the correct construction and had not erred in finding that it was not conditional upon the debtor's wife's IVA also being approved. Further, the judge had not erred in finding that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners had subsequently ratified the proxy vote cast on its behalf, even though the proxy form had not specifically addressed the proposal that had eventually been passed. 

Legal aid – Bill of costs. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the defendant NHS's Trust's appeal against a decision of a master in relation to costs holding that where a party had exhausted the costs, that could be claimed under a Legal Aid certificate so that it was 'spent', it could in principle establish a discharge by conduct in the same manner as certificates in which all of the work up to a limitation of scope had been carried out and accordingly, ss 10(1) and 22(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 had been not been contravened. 

Road traffic – Accident. The Queen's Bench Division held in relation to a claimant who had suffered serious injuries following ejection from the back seat of a car in which he had not been wearing as seatbelt, that, having regard to Polish law he would be found 5% contributory negligent having regard to his injuries. In calculating his past loss of earnings, the claimant had to be given credit for benefits received in the United Kingdom. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court made rulings in proceedings concerning a patent owned by the defendant company, Eli Lilly, for a product used to treat lung cancer. It held that declarations of non-infringement would be granted in respect of each of the four designations of the patent in issue. Both parties would have permission to apply to the court in the event of a material change of circumstances. Further, declarations were made that two letters sent by Eli Lilly in the course of proceedings did not constitute legally binding undertakings. 

Customs and excise – Forfeiture. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, agreed with the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) that the answer to the question whether, after goods were deemed to have been duly condemned or had been condemned by the magistrates, an officer of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners exercising the discretionary power to restore goods to the owner could or should investigate a claim that the goods were not liable to forfeiture after all, was 'No'. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by trustees of trusts, to which the Russian banker Sergei Pugachev was a discretionary beneficiary, to discharge a worldwide freezing order granted to the claimants where there had been no culpable non-disclosure as alleged and where there was a real risk of dissipation of assets. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a product, such as effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that was used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label was 1,500 mg, fell within heading 3004 of that nomenclature. 

Practice – Striking out. In the defendant solicitors' firm's application for summary judgment or strike out, the Chancery Division permitted the claimant to apply for permission to amend the particulars of claim to raise a new cause of action on terms that the defendant was entitled to raise and rely upon any limitation defence it would have if the claimant had issued fresh proceedings at the date of the amendment.