Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A number of agreements came into existence with a view to the making of a Spanish film entitled La Mula based upon a novel about the Spanish Civil War (the project). The first claimant was a well known film director and the second claimant was a partnership between him and his wife. The first and second defendants (also husband and wife) were shareholders in the fourth defendant, of which the fifth defendant was a wholly owned subsidiary. The sixth defendant was a company incorporated and wholly owned by the claimant. A dispute arose following the start of the project and the claimants brought proceedings in tort. A master allowed summary judgment against the claimants and refused to allow a proposed amendment which would have, in effect, changed the proceedings. He also made a costs order. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's application for permission to appeal as the master's decision had merely been a robust case management decision and in any event had been correct in law. 

Solicitor – Undertaking. The claimant made an application in the course of other proceedings to have the defendants and a solicitor committed for breach of an undertaking which was not an undertaking to the court. The Queen's Bench Division considered the jurisdiction of the court to commit for breach of an undertaking given by a solicitor other than an undertaking to the court; as well as whether the court should exercise any discretion it had to allow committal proceedings to be brought on the facts of this case. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Legal professional privilege. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed, in part, an appeal by Vincent Tchenguiz and others against a decision of the Commercial Court refusing them permission to make use of documents disclosed inadvertently by the Serious Fraud Office in the course of proceedings. The court held, amongst other things, that it had not been obvious that the documents, which were subject to legal professional privilege, had been disclosed by mistake. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Warranty. The parties contracted for the construction of a number of wind turbine generators. It became apparent that the design of the turbines had been flawed, and a dispute arose. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, the defendants were entitled to a declaration that the problem had arisen as a consequence of a breach of the agreements between the parties by the claimant company. 

Company – Breach of contract. The claimant company sought to purchase a waste management business from the defendants. The claimant claimed that the defendants had breached a number of warranties contained in a specific performance agreement (SPA). The defendants counterclaimed for breach of the SPA. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claim was made out in part, and the counterclaim was not made out. 

Company – Director. The claimant company claimed for loss suffered when two client companies defaulted on their obligations to pay margin calls under open-ended contracts for difference (CfD) entered into between the claimant and those two companies. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's determination that the defendant had not been a director or shadow director of the claimant, nor had his conduct constituted a breach of s 190 of the Companies Act 2006. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal rejecting his claims for discrimination on grounds of age and constructive dismissal. Although the EAT considered that the words used by the employer had been discriminatory, it decided that those words had not been material part of conduct which had amounted to the breach in response to which the employee had resigned. 

Rates – Rateable occupation. The tenant of the appellants' property went into liquidation and its liquidator disclaimed all interest in the property. The appellants continued to call on a guarantor to make good the tenant's default and the guarantor paid the sums demanded. The judge held that the appellants were liable for rates charged by the defendant local authority. The appellants appealed by way of case stated. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct to find that the first appellant had been the owner within ss 45(1)(b) and 65(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and, therefore, liable for non-occupation rates for the property. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) that supplies of polycarbonate roof panels and radiation strips for conservatory roofs qualified for the reduced rate of VAT. The tribunal decided that the FTT had erred in its interpretation of Note 1(a) of Group 2 of Sch 7A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That error had been to construe 'insulation for roofs' as extending to the roof itself when it had energy-saving properties, rather than being confined to insulating materials attached or applied to a roof.