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. 

European Union – European institutions. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by the European Council by which it had sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union. In that judgment, the General Court had annulled in part the Council's decision refusing Ms in't Veld full access to a document containing the opinion of the Council's Legal Service concerning a recommendation from the European Commission to the Council to authorise the opening of negotiations between the European Union and the United States of America for the conclusion of an international agreement to make available to the United States Treasury Department financial messaging data. 

Company – Receiver. In earlier London arbitration proceedings, the claimant had been awarded around US$300m against the defendant foreign companies. The Commercial Court granted the claimant's application to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution over certain assets of the defendants where, on the facts, it was just and convenient to do so, in the exercise of the court's discretion. 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The employment tribunal upheld claims by the employee that, inter alia, she had been discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy, maternity and her sex and awarded her compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the respondents' appeal against that finding, held that the tribunal had not applied the correct legal test. Accordingly, the findings of pregnancy and maternity discrimination would be set aside and the matter remitted to the same tribunal. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The second defendant local authority issued an enforcement notice over all of the claimants' land. The inspector for the first defendant Secretary of State dismissed their appeal and the claimants appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that planning permission had been lost, as the claimants had created two new planning units, which had materially changed the use from the planning permission. Further, the claimants could not rely on s 57(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as the enforcement notice had covered areas that had not been the subject of the planning permission. 

Negligence – Medical negligence. The claimant brought a personal injury claim in negligence against the defendant NHS Trust in respect of three operations for Dupuytren's contracture of the left non dominant hand, palm, little finger and ring finger. Taking into account the evidence, on balance of probabilities, the Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had proven part of his case but had failed in resepct of another part. The parties had agreed the appropriate level of damages in the light of this finding. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to allow the respondent's appeal against the rejection of his application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to reinstate his indefinite leave to remain (ILR) which had been revoked following the issue of a deportation order pursuant to s 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The Supreme Court decided that on the correct construction of s 5(2) of that Act, the respondent remained liable to deportation, even though it could not at present be carried out: although his position in the United Kingdom had to be regularised, that did not entail recognition of ILR. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. P was an elderly patient in under the care of the relevant NHS Trust. She was described by a number of the medical professionals as being 'very frail', had no eye contact, appeared unconscious, and was unable to communicate or respond to any requests or commands. The Trust sought declarations pursuant to s 15(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that it was lawful and in P's best interests to continue to receive artificial hydration via subcutaneous injection and that the treating clinicians were to be permitted not to provide artificial nutrition by a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube or via an alternative artificial feeding regime and not to resuscitate her in the event of either a cardiac or respiratory arrest. The Court of Protection granted the declarations as being in P's best interests.