Latest Cases

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(35)(d), 17(1) and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2008. The request had been made in proceedings between SC Total Waste Recycling SRL and the National Inspectorate of Environment and Nature, concerning an administrative fine imposed by the latter for infringements of the rules on shipments of waste. 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) that the appellant Brazilian national had entered into a marriage of convenience with a Portuguese national in order to re-enter and remain in the United Kingdom. While the legal burden of proof lay on the Secretary of State throughout, the evidential burden could shift. The errors in law made by the FTT had not been material to the outcome. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43/. The reference had been made in proceedings between Grüne Liga Sachsen eVand Others, on the one hand, and the Free State of Saxony, on the other, regarding a decision taken by the authorities of the latter approving the construction of a bridge over the Elbe in Dresden (Germany). 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court granted the claimant's application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award in its favour for works it had carried out works, under a construction contract, for the defendant. When considering whether to enforce adjudicators' decisions, a distinction had to be drawn between jurisdictional challenges to enforcement and challenges alleging substantive error. The adjudicator in the present case had had jurisdiction because, however, the contractual arrangements between the parties were correctly to be described, they mandated the use of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 and the adjudicator had been properly appointed by the scheme's procedure. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The Queen's Bench Division made findings in respect of two preliminary issues, first to determine the actual defamatory meaning of the words complained in emails send by the defendant recruitment agency in respect of the claimant to secondly determine, pursuant to s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, whether the publications of the words complained of had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission that by failing: (i) to include all the territories of the IPAS in the special protection area covering the Kaliakra region; (ii) approving the implementation of certain projects; (iii) to assess properly the cumulative effects of those projects, Bulgaria had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 6(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, art 4(1), (2), (4) of Directive (EC) 2009/147 and arts 2(1), 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92/EU. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Indian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. She had not had a 'parental relationship' with her grandchildren, despite the very close familial relationship between them and the Secretary of State had properly considered the grandchildren's best interest. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, read in conjunction with art 16(1) of that regulation. The request had been made in the course of proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Hobohm, domiciled in Germany, and, on the other hand, Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG, Mr Kampik and Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL, established in Spain, concerning the repayment of sums of money made available to Mr Kampik by Mr Hobohm for the purchase of an apartment in Spain on behalf of Mr Hobohm. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division, following an earlier judgment dismissing the appellants' appeal against the decision of a deputy master that he did not have power to make an order for disclosure under CPR 31.16, held that the appellants had to pay the respondents £16,000 in costs. Those costs took account of the appellants' costs in the respondents' unsuccessful application for permission to cross-appeal. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his claim for damages for personal injury. Among other things, it rejected his submission that the social utility factor could be taken into account only if the measures required to reduce the risk of harm would make it impossible to carry on the activity in question, as that put the matter too high.