Latest Cases

Human rights – Property. The European Court of Human Rights found that the government of the United Kingdom had wrongly confiscated the wages of an Ivorian worker who had used a false passport to gain employment and should have balanced individual property rights against the interests of the general public. Consequently, the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his property pursuant to art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another company in the same consortium (the applicants) for the annulment of the decision not to award the contract for 'Crimean tourism diversification and support project' to the applicants' consortium and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's rejection of her application for a replacement passport. The Secretary of State contended that the claimant was not who she claimed to be, but was the sister of that person. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not discharged the burden upon her to establish that she was who she said she was and that she was entitled to British citizenship. Accordingly, she was not entitled to a passport. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The judge granted the claimant permission to bring committal proceedings against the defendants for contempt allegations, concerning false statements. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to conclude that there had been a strong prima facie case on the evidence, demonstrating that the defendants had knowingly made false statements. Further, he had failed to consider the history of the proceedings between the parties and had been wrong to conclude that it had been in the public interest that such allegations should proceed to a full committal hearing. 

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. 

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. 

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister was charged with four offences of professional misconduct by the respondent Bar Standards Board. He was unable to attend the hearing and his application for an adjournment was refused by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Courts (the tribunal). The hearing proceeded in his absence, and he was disbarred and fined. The appellant appealed against the refusal of an adjournment. The Divisional Court, in allowing his appeal, held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the approach to be applied when determining whether to grant an adjournment. 

Human rights – Inhuman or degrading treatment. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's return to Romania to serve a three-year sentence, which could potentially be served in the third most over-crowded Romanian prison. The senior district judge ordered the appellant's surrender to Romania and the appellant appealed. The Divisional Court ruled that to return a prisoner to serve three years in a collective cell where the personal space was approximately 1.5 metres would amount to a violation of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Indirect taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 10(c) of Council Directive (EEC) 69/335 (concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital) should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provided that the Treasury was to receive a share of the fees charged by a notary employed as a civil servant when he drew up a notarial act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company, and which did not lead to an increase in the capital of the company making the acquisition or changing its legal form. 

Guarantee – Misrepresentation. A bank sought to enforce two limited guarantees signed by the defendant, as security for facilities provided by the bank to a property development company owned by the defendant and his son. The defendant contended that he was entitled to rescind the guarantees on the grounds of misrepresentation and economic duress. The Chancery Division, in granting the bank's claim, and in dismissing the counterclaim, held that, whilst, in principle, a statement by a bank or other financial institution that it wanted to increase its exposure in a particular business sector might, if untrue, be capable of providing the basis for a claim in misrepresentation, the defendant had, on the facts, failed to establish that defence or economic duress.