Latest Cases

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling in which it held that, on a proper construction of art 2d(4) of Directive 89/665, where a public contract was awarded without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, but that was not permissible under Directive 2004/18, the contract could not be declared ineffective, if the conditions laid down in that provision were, in fact, satisfied, which it was for the referring court to determine. 

Elections – Local government. The petitioners had issued an election petition that sought to declare void the mayoral elections that had been held in Tower Hamlets. The petitioners applied to have the election court held outside the borough because, they submitted, there had been widespread intimidation of electors who did not support the successful candidate, including harassment of one of the petitioners, because witnesses were likely to be subjected to intimidation and because any venue in the borough would be surrounded by large groups of supporters for the successful candidate, as had been the case during the election. The Queen's Bench Division held that there were no special circumstances that justified fixing the place of trial outside the borough where the Commissioner who heard the petition had the power to discuss security with the police and could move the venue at any time, to another one within the borough, if he felt that it had become inappropriate. 

Town and country planning – Site of historic interest. The claimant applied to have Germany Beck added to the defendant's battlefields register as the site of the Battle of Fulford. The defendant, applying its own selection guide, refused the application on the ground of location uncertainty. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant had not erred in law, and had properly understood and applied its guidance. 

Education – School. The claimant governing body of a school sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision that it should become an academy sponsored by an academy trust. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence had justified the Secretary of State's view that sponsored academies were more likely to deliver attainment and improve progress in schools in need of intervention than maintained schools. Further, he had had regard to the possible disruption caused by the conversion and his decision had not been premature or irrational in the light of the schools improvement. 

Arbitration – Appeal. The claimant, PEC, was a company owned by the President of India.The defendant company, AGR, was a Thailand-based rice trader. PEC appealed under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against a finding by the GAFTA First-tier Tribunal that a purchase agreement had been concluded between the parties, through two individuals, R and J, on behalf of PEC, for the purchase of rice by PEC and that PEC were liable to pay AGR $6.25m. The Commercial Court, allowing the appeal, held that R and J had not had actual or apparent authority to conclude the purchase agreement, and that PEC had not made any arbitration agreement relating thereto. 

Practice – Conduct of proceedings. The claimant claimed to have been an agent of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and/or Special Branch in Northern Ireland between 1987 and 1991. He brought a claim seeking to prove that security arrangements and promises made to him by State officials of financial and non-financial support were mishandled. The defendant neither admitted nor denied the first claimant's allegations and applied for a declaration under s 6 of Justice and Security Act 2013 to deploy her case with the aid of sensitive material. The Queen's Bench Division held that the conditions under s 6 of the Act had been met and that the case raised difficult issues which were better decided under the umbrella of s 6 proceedings. 

Contract – Construction. The parents' children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term's fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen's Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal by the Crown in a case in which the respondent was charged on indictment with a sexual offence, the court held that having determined that it was in the interests of justice that the trial diet required to be adjourned it was not open to the sheriff to determine that it was not in the interests of justice to extend the 12-month time bar to enable a new trial to take place. The court also made observations with a view to encouraging a different approach to first diets and one more in keeping with their essential purpose of determining any preliminary pleas or issues. 

Personal injury – Liability. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought damages for an injury sustained when she fell onto steps after a seagull swooped at her outside a building owned, occupied and operated by defenders, the court held that the pursuer had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the gull which attacked her came from the defenders' building, and in any event her case under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 fell on the first hurdle of reasonable foreseeability and her statutory cases under regs 5 and 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 also failed. 

Elections – Local government. Following mayoral elections in Tower Hamlets, the petitioners issued an election petition to challenge that election. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the petitioners' application for a protective costs order as the Representation of the People Act 1983 made special provision for costs in respect of election petitions. Further, the successful candidate's application to dismiss or strike out the election petition was dismissed as it could not be said that the petition was in whole, or in part, a nullity for want of sufficient particularity.