Latest Cases

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. 

Criminal law – Money laundering. The defendant appealed against his conviction for converting criminal property. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in permitting amendment of the indictment after a successful no case to answer submission or in ruling that the acts alleged in the amended count had not been subsumed by conspiracies to defraud of which he had been acquitted. Further, the Crown Court had had jurisdiction to deal with the amended count where all the activities alleged had been undertaken in Spain by a non-resident of the United Kingdom in relation to a Spanish bank account. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Administrative Court previously gave judgment on the claimant's application for a declaration that the European Commission would be in contempt of court if it had taken certain action that would have the effect of interfering with orders granting interim relief that had been made in the action. The parties sought their costs. The court held that, in all the circumstances, there should be no order for costs as between the claimant and the Commission. However, the claimant should pay 50% of the defendant Food Standards Agency's costs and no order would be made as to the other 50%. 

Shipping – Collision. In June 2011, during high winds at the port of Genoa, the defendant owners' ship struck a crane belonging to the claimant terminal. The claimant brought proceedings for negligence. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the terminal was entitled to judgment against the owners. The owners' case on contributory negligence would be dismissed. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant doctor £45,000by way of damages for libel, following the publication of an article in the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The court held that the defamatory statements made about the claimant had not been justified, the facts and matters on which the comments had been made, had not been proved and the article could not be defended as honest comment. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant bank withdrew proceedings for possession against P. A dispute arose as to whether costs should be paid by the bank on the standard basis or the indemnity basis. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the bank had not acted for a collateral purpose that had been beyond its abilities, and its proceedings had not been an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, costs would be awarded on the standard basis. 

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. 

Company – Winding up. The trial of a preliminary issue was ordered, concerning the priority to be given to the payment of certain charges owed to the respondent company for gas and electricity supplied to retail premises after companies in liquidation had entered into administration and after they had been vacated by the companies. The Companies Court held that liability under the deemed contracts was provable, pursuant to r 13.12(1)(b) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, as a liability to which the companies had become subject after the date of administration by reason of an obligation incurred before that date. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision granting two applications to extend retrospectively the 11 and 12-month time limits in relation to two petitions on which the appellant appeared in 2008 and 2010, which the Crown sought because it wished to add the charges contained in those petitions to an indictment in June 2013, the court held that the sheriff's decision was flawed in several respects and there was no evident basis in the history of the proceedings for granting any extension. 

European Union – Imports. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) 338/97. The request had been made in the course of a dispute between Sofia Zoo and the Inspectorate General of the State for the Conservation of the Environment and Nature and for the Administration of Water, which concerned the latter's decision to order the confiscation of specimens of wild animals originating from Tanzania.