Latest Cases

Public Procurement – Public services contracts. The proceedings concerned a procurement for the provision of air traffic control services at Gatwick airport. A dispute arose as to the claimant company's tender. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, the applicable test in the circumstances was that laid down in the case of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504 , and that, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to lift an automatic suspensions provision preventing the defendant from entering into contracts with the successful tenderer. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against a costs order made at the conclusion of intellectual property litigation where the parties had incurred substantial costs. The court held, amongst other things, that the judge had rightly identified three aspects of the final order which had represented substantial improvements on a Calderbank offer made during the course of the proceedings and that it would not justify a departure from the usual rule that, if there was any order as to costs, the costs should be paid by the unsuccessful party. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In earlier proceedings, the claimant Russian shipping companies had alleged that the various defendants had been dishonestly involved in schemes to enrich a Russian businessman. The claimants had obtained freezing orders against the defendants and gave undertakings (the undertakings) to compensate the defendants in the event that the court found them to have suffered loss consequent upon the orders. Some, but not all of the claims had succeeded. Some of the defendants to the orders (the applicants in the present proceedings) alleged that they suffered loss consequent upon those orders and that the orders had been improperly made due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of disclosure and had caused them loss. They applied for directions for an assessment of compensation for loss suffered to be paid, under the undertakings. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the impropriety of the claimants who had obtained the freezing orders had been such that it would be wrong not to enforce the undertakings. The defendants had adduced sufficient evidence that the orders had caused them loss to justify an inquiry as to damages. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The proceedings concerned the care of a young man, M, who was autistic. His parents, especially his mother, E, contended that care for M had been ineffective and that his condition had been the result of the use of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. The local authority sought orders stating that E had invented symptoms and failed to assist with M's care. The Court of Protection granted the orders and refused E's application to be reinstated as M's deputy. 

Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant was a Turkish worker who had been employed in the United Kingdom for four years before being refused indefinite leave to remain based on art 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 made pursuant to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement. He was refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision to grant him a further three years' leave. He was granted permission to appeal in respect of the 'standstill clause' at art 13 of the Decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal as it was clear under the caselaw from the Court of Justice of the European Union that arts 6(1) and 13 of the Decision were directed at different situations and his rights were covered by art 6(1) as applied by the Secretary of State. 

European Union – Treaty provisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission to the effect that by taking certain actions, including excluding members of a profession, dentists and physiotherapists from the scope of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 (on commercial practices, consumer information and consumer protection), as amended by the Belgian Law of 5 June 2007, transposing in national law Directive (EC) 2005/29, Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 2(b), (d), 3 and 4 of that directive. 

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. 

Patent – Validity. The Patents Court considered challenges to the legitimacy of a patent for a treatment of asthma. It held that a challenge to the patent based on anticipation would be dismissed. However, a challenge to the patent on grounds of obviousness was made out and the patent was therefore invalid. A number of amended claims put forward by the owner of the patent would be rejected. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 (the contested decision), having found that certain undertakings, including Reagens SpA, had infringed art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area by participating in two groups of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices covering the territory of the EEA and concerning, on the one hand, the tin heat stabiliser sector and, on the other, the epoxidised soybean oil and esters sector. In the present proceedings, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Reagens SpA for annulment of the contested decision or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on that company.