Latest Cases

Company – Winding-up. The Chancery Division, dismissed the petitioners' application to have a winding up petition heard in the UK, in respect of the respondents foreign companies, which were part of a group that developed and operated luxury Caribbean resorts. The court ruled that, notwithstanding that a reasonably substantial connection with England had been satisfied, the English court had no jurisdiction for a winding up order in circumstances where, among other things, most of the companies assets were mainly in a foreign jurisdiction, and where the order sought would prove ineffective. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appeal concerned the amended Immigration Rules that required a UK spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the United Kingdom to join them. The Administrative Court had held that there was substantial merit in the contention that the amendments amounted to a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not grant declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his analysis and had reached the wrong conclusion on compatibility. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Secretary of State had failed to consult the public of the Republic of Ireland in accordance with art 7 of Directive (EU) 2011/92 in granting development consent for the construction of a European pressurised reactor nuclear power station. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that the test was not whether the project was 'likely to have significant effects on the environment' applying to Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, but the 'real risk' test adopted in domestic authorities. It further refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employee's claims were struck out and the tribunal judge ordered that he should pay the whole of the employer's costs of the proceedings, to be assessed by the county court. The employee appealed, submitting that the judge had taken into account the substantial bill of costs incurred by the employer's in-house solicitor. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that a receiving party could claim costs where he was legally represented by a qualified employee and that the definition within rule 38(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004 had not placed any artificial restriction on such a claim. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) dismissed the appeal by FLS Plast A/S (FLS Plast) in which FLS Plast had asked the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Plast v European Commission (Case T‑64/06) by which the General Court had dismissed in part its action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final relating to a proceeding pursuant to art 81 EC or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine which had been imposed upon FLS Plast by that decision. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to the Czech Republic on the basis that it would be an abuse of process. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the extradition process had not been abused. There was nothing to suggest that the injustice to the appellant of having been tried, convicted and sentenced in his absence on the erroneous premise that he had been a fugitive from justice had been the result of anything other than incompetence on the part of the Czech authorities. There was no material which suggested that they had been motivated by bad faith. 

Practice – Application. The claimant bank sought Norwich Pharmacal orders against a number of persons to whom payments had been made in error. The Chancery Division held that, excluding some of the personal details sought, the orders would be granted. 

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. 

Damages – Assessment. The claimants, JXL and SXC were sisters. In 1989 when they were children the Defendant raped them. They brought an action for personal injury and judgment was entered in default. The instant case was an assessment for damages payable by the defendant to the claimants. The Queen's Bench Division held that the general damages to be awarded were JXL, £32,500 and SXC, 40,000 with a total award of £131,674 going to JXL and £232,360 going to SXC. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv, established in Belgium, and YouView TV Ltd, established in the United Kingdom, concerning the application by the latter company for registration of a word mark 'YouView+' as a Community trade mark.