Latest Cases

Patent – Medicine. The Chancery Division made declarations as sought by the claimant pharmaceutical companies. It held that the initial marketing authorisation for a drug, Ribomustin, had been obtained in 2005, as contended by the claimants, rather than 2010, as contended by the defendant pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the ten-year period of delay before the claimants could market their own product had commenced in 2005, not 2010. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted the third defendant joint tortfeasor's application for summary judgment on the basis that a consent order made with the two of the joint feasors meant that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success against the third defendant as the claim had been satisfied by the consent order. 

Insolvency – Administration. The Companies Court held that directions for the administration of the statutory trusts could be given on an application under para 63 to Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 Act and, on the application of the administrators, it gave directions regarding the distribution of money in the client accounts of insurance intermediary companies, AXA and Aviva, which had gone into administration. 

European Union – Value Added Tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the local authorities against a determination that, if they were treated as a non-taxable person for VAT purposes, within the meaning of art 4(5) of Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, then that would distort competition in the off-street car-parking market in the area of pricing. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of five years' imprisonment, but directed that the importation of cash could not be relied on, as it did not meet the test of dual criminality. It held that the same level of particularity was required for conviction and accusation European arrest warrants, and that a factual inaccuracy did not render the warrant invalid. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) and its subsidiaries for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that those companies and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against an order whereby judgment was given for the claimant in the sum of £13,397. It held, among other things, that the recorder had erred in principle in having taken the course that he had in regard to allowing an amendment to the claim. Further, the recorder's analysis in respect of breach of duty was deficient in a number of respects and his reasoning in relation to causation was also flawed. 

Environment – Protection. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers' Society's application for judicial review, held that 'damage', as defined in art 2(2) of Parliament and Council Directive (CE) 2004/35 was restricted to a deterioration in the environmental situation and did not include the prevention of an existing, already damaged environmental state from achieving a level which was acceptable in environmental terms or a deceleration in such achievement. 

Human rights – Freedom of expression. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's judicial review proceedings, held that the decision of the Greater London Authority (GLA) to erect and maintain fencing on and around Parliament Square Garden had interfered with his rights under arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the interference had been justified and the very definition of a proportionate response. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by SAS Cargo Group A/S and others for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that those companies and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment.