Latest Cases

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court held, among other things, that, on the evidence, the claimant had been an investor, within the meaning of a bilateral agreement between Venezuela and Canada and therefore entitled to arbitrate a claim against Venezuela concerning mining concessions and mining rights. Consequently, Venezuela had lost its right to rely on state immunity in proceedings brought by the claimant to enforce an award of the arbitral tribunal in Paris. Further, s 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not require the service of the arbitration claim form on Venezuela in the manner contended. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. The Commercial Court granted declarations in favour of the claimant insured, ruling, among other things, that a claim for indemnity insurance had been first made within the relevant policy period. If it had not, but, rather, had been made by letter dated 2 April 2013, it was covered by the second excess policy by virtue of an extension clause and the defendant insurers were not entitled to decline cover by virtue of a clause in the primary policy. 

Guarantee – Bank guarantee. The Technology and Construction Court considered the claimant oil company's application for summary judgment against the defendant bank (Barclays) on a claim for payment under the guarantee. The guarantee had been issued as security for a company's performance of its obligations to the claimant under a contract for work on an oil field. The court ruled that it was not a pre-requisite to the validity of the claimant's demand that the claimant had to make a statement that no amendment had been made to the contract impacting the timely performance of the works under the contract. Such a declaration was irrelevant to Barclays' obligation under the guarantee. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court, on the claimant's application for indemnity costs following the defendant's failure to accept a claimant's CPR Pt 36 offer, held that the offer had been a valid offer within the meaning of CPR Pt 36 and a genuine attempt to settle the claim. In the circumstances, there was no reason why the claimant should not be entitled to indemnity costs from the earliest date by which the defendant could reasonably have put itself in a position to make an informed assessment of the strength of the claim on liability, which was four months from the date of the offer. 

Prison – Discipline. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant serving young offender's challenge to the defendant Independent Adjudicator's ruling that the defence of duress was not available to his disciplinary proceedings for the unauthorised possession of alcohol. The principles underlying the general distinction between criminal and disciplinary offences told strongly in favour of treating the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, SI 2000/3371, and the Prison Rules 1999, SI 1999/278, as separate non-criminal disciplinary codes for the purpose of the application of the common law defence of duress. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of approximately nine months for offences of robbery, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. As the appellant had served the remainder of his sentence on remand, it would be disproportionate to his rights under art 8 of the Convention to order his extradition. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that total sentences of 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, for religiously aggravated intentional harassment and assault by beating, had not been unduly lenient. The recorder had exercised his discretion to suspend the sentences in a way that he was entitled to have done. 

Practice – Order. The Chancery Division allowed an appeal by the appellant trustees in bankruptcy against an order (the Hay order) setting aside an earlier order (the Paul order) in proceedings where the trustees sought, among other things, a declaration regarding the ownership of a property. The court held that, considering the appeal in the light of the overriding objective, the matter ought to have been brought to an end once and for all by the Paul order. 

Building – Contract. The Technology and Construction Court, on the claimant developer's CPR Pt 8 claim for declaratory relief, held that the defendant building contractor had had no contractual right to have made or be paid in respect of an application for a further interim payment (or any subsequent application thereafter), in circumstances where the application had been made after the period covered by an agreed schedule governing the making of interim applications and payments. 

European Union – Commercial policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the validity and interpretation of: (i) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006; (ii) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, following an expiry review pursuant to art 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96; and (iii) art 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings, brought by C & J Clark International Ltd (Clarks) against the United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Commissioners and by Puma SE (Puma) against the Principal Customs Office, Nuremberg, relating to the anti-dumping duty paid by Clarks and Puma, pursuant to the regulations in dispute, when importing footwear with uppers of leather into the European Union.