Latest Cases

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered the appeal brought by Mr Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court had not granted in full Mr Strack's form of order requesting annulment of several decisions of the European Commission relating to his applications for access to various documents based on Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents). 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's argument, amongst other things, that the employment tribunal had been wrong to hold that the indirect discrimination that the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584 had created by providing, in the exemption set out in reg 12(8), more favourable access to employment opportunities for United Kingdom students than for non-UK students had been justified. The EAT decided that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the discriminatory effects had been justified as being in pursuit of a legitimate aim. 

The respondent issued proceedings for negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty for damage suffered in an explosion at the appellants' factory. The judge found in favour of the appellants, but the Inner House of Court of Session reversed that decision and the appellants appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that s 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was to be read as if it said 'the creditor was not aware … that loss, injury or damage, which had been caused as aforesaid, had occurred'. Accordingly, any obligation the appellants had owed to make reparation to the respondent had prescribed before the proceedings had begun. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the action brought by Moallem Insurance Co for: (i) annulment of the European Council which had listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); (ii) annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010) in so far as it had listed the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation 267/2012; and (iii) a declaration that art 12 of Decision 2010/413 and art 35 of Regulation 267/2012 were inapplicable to it. 

Shipping – Charterparty. A dispute arose about the alleged extending of a charterparty of a vessel. Considering anticipatory breach to have occurred, the owners sought to accept the breach and sold the vessel. By the time of the hearing, it was apparent that there was a significant difference in the value of the vessel when the owners sold it and November 2009, when the vessel would have been redelivered to owners had the charterers not been in breach of the charterparty. The Commercial Court held that the owners had not been required to give any credit for any benefit in realising the capital value of the vessel in October 2007, when the owners had arranged to sell it. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A football stadium was subject to a planning condition that only three music events could be held there per year, only one of which could fall on a Sunday. The second defendant local authority and the first defendant Secretary of State's planning inspector refused the claimant's application to vary that condition to increase the number of music events held at the stadium. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error of law in the decision. 

Statutory duty – Breach. Following a fire at his home in which a Samsung fridge freezer caught fire, the claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for breach of the statutory duty, under s 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and/or for negligence. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving that there had been a defect in the product or the seat or origin of the fire. Further, the facts found had not provided the basis of a claim against the defendant in negligence. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The European Court of Justice Union ruled that art 41(1) of the Additional Protocol concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 and annexed to the Association Agreement had to be interpreted as meaning that the 'standstill' clause set out in that provision precluded a measure of national law, introduced after the entry into force of that additional protocol in the member state concerned, which imposed on spouses of Turkish nationals residing in that member state, who wished to enter the territory of that state for the purposes of family reunification, the condition that they demonstrate beforehand that they had acquired basic knowledge of the official language of that member state. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Mr Al-Tabbaa, a Syrian businessman, for annulment of acts by the European Council containing restrictive measures against Syria which concerned the applicant, namely, initially, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP (implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 410/2012 (implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria). 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of point (k) of the second paragraph of art 2 and art 3(3) of Directive (EC) 2009/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources). The request had been made in proceedings between Ålands Vindkraft AB (AV) and the Swedish Energy Agency concerning the latter's refusal to authorise, for the purposes of the award of electricity certificates, a wind farm in Finland operated by AV.