Latest Cases

Company – Director. The defendants committed a number of offences, including fraud, connected to the retention of deposit money by a letting company. They were found criminally responsible, but the court declined to make an order for disqualification. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills applied for an order disqualifying the defendants, but the Chancery Division held that it was not appropriate to make such an order and was unfair that the defendants should be exposed to the same claim on two occasions. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union held, on a preliminary ruling, that Council Directive (EEC) 91/477 (on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons), as amended by Council and European Parliament Directive (EC) 2008/51, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that which was at issue in the main proceedings, which authorised the issue of a European firearms pass only to holders of weapons used for hunting and target shooting purposes. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. During the proceedings, various interim orders were made, the effect of which was, ultimately, that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed against all of the interim orders made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. 

Adoption – Application. Following an application by a married couple to adopt a child that had been living with them for nine years, the Family Division dispensed with the consent as required by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and made the adoption order as on the facts the child was clearly thriving with the applicants. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal had dismissed the employee's claim that the employer, in refusing the employee time off to attend a church harvest, had directly discriminated against the employee on the grounds of his religion and belief. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that although the tribunal might well have had in mind the answers to the central issues, it had insufficiently expressed its findings on them in order for an appellate court to be confident that it had done so. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for consideration. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had invested in a fund operated by the defendant, a Gibraltar company, which had lost all its capital. The claimant brought a claim in negligence and breach of contract against the defendant and served the claim form, without permission, outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2)(b)(iii) and art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the service of the claim where the claimant had a good arguable case that there had been a concluded agreement, within art 23 of the Regulation. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £6,600 in general damages. She suffered fractures to her mid right ribs, soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders and jaw. Rib fractures resolved after four months, neck injury resolved after five months, shoulder injury resolved after three months. The swelling to the claimant's jaw resolved after two weeks and the associated pain and tenderness resolved after four months. 

Copyright – Ownership. The claimant company issued proceedings, seeking remedies against the defendants for infringement of copyright and against the first defendant for breaches of contract. The defendants counterclaimed. The Chancery Division ruled on various issues arising out of copyright proceedings. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods and services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal brought by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had decided that certain dog foods sold by Roger Skinner Ltd were zero-rated as 'animal feeding stuffs' within Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The tribunal decided that on the evidence, the FTT had been entitled to take the view that none of the products in dispute had been 'meal for ... dogs' and consequently did not fall within the excepted items in Group 1 of Sch 8 to the Act which were standard-rated. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal upheld the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal, subject to a 75% deduction under the Polkey principles and 75% contribution and dismissed his complaint for wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred by failing to make specific findings of fact as to the misconduct alleged against the employee, both in relation to contributory fault and wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, those matters would be remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration.