Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the obligation of transparency, which flowed from art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, precluded the extension by a member state, to all employers and employees within a sector, of a collective agreement concluded by the employers' and employees' respective representatives for a sector, under which a single economic operator, chosen by the social partners, was entrusted with the management of a compulsory social insurance scheme established for employees, where the national rules did not provide for publicity sufficient to enable the competent public authority to take full account of information which had been submitted concerning the existence of a more favourable offer. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Right to family life. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by an Indian citizen, challenging the refusal of his application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, the court held that the respondent had not shown by her refusal letter that proper consideration had been given to the whole circumstances of the case, either within the Immigration Rules or outside of them. 

Shipping – Collision. The Admiralty Court apportioned liability to four vessels following a collision at the port of Mumbai. It held that, among other things, r 9 of the Collision Regulations and Distress Signals Order 1977, SI 1977/982, still applied where a vessel was navigating around the outside of a dredged channel. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba), asking the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 May 2014 in Toshiba v Commission (T‑519/09, whereby the General Court had dismissed Toshiba's action for annulment of Decision C(2009) 7601 final of the European Commission of 7 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC in respect of Toshiba's participation in an unlawful cartel in relation to the market for power transformers. 

Company – Articles of association. The Chancery Division held that the proper construction of the claimant companies' articles of association had been to value the defendants' minority shareholdings on the basis of a pro rata proportion of the value of the whole equity of the claimants. In addition to publicly available information, the accountants undertaking the valuation of the shares were also entitled to further available information which related to the companies. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused to exercise its discretion in relation to an application by the husband to set aside an order for payment of child maintenance based on the service provisions in that order. Over two years had elapsed before the husband had taken the point on service, although he had taken many other meritless points about the validity of the order all of which had been dismissed. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal in a deportation case, held that, although the tribunals below had been wrong to conclude that the respondent Italian national had acquired a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom, under reg 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, the error had not been material to the outcome and there was, therefore, no basis upon which to set aside the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). 

Evidence – Admissibility. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant tenants' appeal concerning the applicability of the 'without prejudice' privilege to certain discussions that had taken place between the second tenant and the defendant landlord's solicitor. The entirety of the discussions at the first interview and thereafter in correspondence, and at the second interview were properly to be regarded as having been protected by without prejudice privilege, which had not been waived. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for an extensive development of two sites. A heritage contribution, pursuant to an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, was lawful, the authority had given sufficient reasons and the conclusion that the authority had been unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing had been justified. 

Child – Care. The Family Court held that the only way in which the future of a 12-year-old boy could be safeguarded was by making him a ward of court. He could not be made a ward whilst he was subject to an interim care order and so that order would be discharged. For the same reasons, it was contrary to his welfare to allow care proceedings to continue and, accordingly, the local authority was given permission to withdraw its application for a care order.