Latest Cases

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that Air Canada 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. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court held that tortious claims, which alleged that the defendants had been involved in the redistribution of a company's ownership through a combination of legal and illegal means, fell within arbitration clauses in the relevant agreements and the second defendant had been properly joined to the proceedings. The claims were remitted to the arbitrators, pursuant to s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer, Ford Motor Company Ltd's appeal, held that an employment judge who had ruled at a preliminary hearing that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction, under the Equality Act 2010, to hear age discrimination claims by pensioners, had erred in failing to consider whether the claims fell within both limits of the Act and in applying the Act. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that Air Canada 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. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court declared that the claimant had been unlawfully detained for a period of 13 months. There had been no unlawful delay at the start of the claimant's detention, but after it had been commented that an impasse had been reached, it had been unreasonable to continue detention and release under a strict contact management regime had been appropriate. 

Criminal evidence – Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed a defendant's appeal against conviction for possessing a handgun and assault where he alleged that non-disclosure of prosecution material in a Scottish trial had breached his right to a fair trial under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held that the lower court had not only identified the correct test concerning the prosecution's failure to disclose identification evidence to the defence which should have been disclosed, but had also applied it to the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals, under s 288AA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by prospective adopters against an order that a child should be removed from their care and returned to the care of her father. Both the hearing itself and parts of the judge's analysis had been flawed to such an extent that the outcome could not safely be relied upon and, accordingly, the order would be set aside and the welfare issue determined afresh by a different judge. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that it would not be right to make a declaration that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was incompatible with Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically, in the present case, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor would it be appropriate to make a declaration that the 'stop and search' that the claimant had experienced had not been in accordance with the law. 

Prison – Removal of prisoner from one prison to another. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to transfer the husband to a category B local or short-term prison which was reasonably accessible to the disabled wife. Although there had been breach of the public sector equality duty, s 31(2A) and (2B) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 precluded the court from making a declaration to that effect. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of six years' imprisonment for the offences of attempted rape and sexual assault was not unduly lenient. The judge's reduction of two years from the eight-year starting point for the attempted rape offence was very generous, but was not unduly lenient.