Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between SIA 'Maxima Latvija' (Maxima Latvija) and the Latvian Competition Council concerning a fine imposed by it on Maxima Latvija for having concluded a series of commercial lease agreements with shopping centres; those agreements containing a clause having an anti-competitive object. 

Criminal law – Information. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the dismissal of five informations relating to the respondent's sale of a motor vehicle on the basis that the justices could not be sure that he had been a 'trader'. The justices had never addressed the respondent's previous sale of some 19 cars and whether there had been a degree of regularity which had made the respondent a trader. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that EU law precluded national legislation which made bringing an action for damages in respect of the infringement of a rule of public procurement law subject to a prior finding that the public procurement procedure for the contract in question was unlawful because of the lack of prior publication of a contract notice, where the action for a declaration of unlawfulness was subject to a six-month limitation period which started to run on the day after the date of the award of the public contract in question, irrespective of whether or not the applicant in that action had been in a position to know of the unlawfulness affecting the decision of the awarding authority. 

Patent – Infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against revocation of its patent entitled 'Interactive special events video signal navigation system' concerning the ability of a television viewer to interact with his television set so as to cause it to display information. The judge had not taken too broad an approach in his construction of the claim. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeals against two judges' orders for his extradition to Poland under two European arrest warrants (EAW), held that, where two cases were being heard together on appeal, proportionality could only properly be decided with reference to everything which underpinned the public interest in extradition being weighed in the balance. Taking all matters into account, there was no doubt that the appellant should be extradited in respect of both EAWs. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in transferring the claimant's challenge to his immigration detention to the county court, was not prepared to assume that a decision to detain him made after an unlawful decision to refuse to accept a submission as a fresh claim was, itself, rendered unlawful, giving rise to a claim in damages. Accordingly, the issue was best dealt with by way of a private law claim for damages. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claim for breach of duty against the defendant hospital in respect of a failure to give corticosteroid drugs to the claimant's mother, H, before her delivery by emergency Caesarean section. It found that the failure to give the drugs did not cause or materially contribute to her developing post-natal Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) as a result of which she required mechanical ventilation. 

Nationality – British nationality. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the applicants' appeals against dismissal of their applications for judicial review in respect of the Secretary of State's decision to render null and void the grant to them of British citizenship. There was an implied limitation upon the powers of the Secretary of State to grant citizenship under s 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981. An applicant for naturalisation was not entitled to be naturalised if he had engaged in fraud to impersonate another of such seriousness and of such centrality to the application that had been made as wholly to undermine the statutory process. That implied limitation could not sensibly be read as concerned only with a narrow focus on how to identify the person who had applied for naturalisation simply by reference to whether they had indefinite leave to remain as an identifiable individual. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal against an order by which the judge granted summary judgment against the first defendant in the sum of £366,999 for goods ordered and supplied, but stayed enforcement of the judgment for any sums in excess of £300,000 pending the trial of the first defendant's counterclaim for damages based on the alleged late delivery and defective condition of the goods. 

Copyright – Infringement. The Chancery Division considered a dispute about the exploitation of recordings of musicals. The court held that copyright in the recordings vested in the second defendant company, and that the first defendant company had known that it had been infringing copyright at the time of releasing certain recordings.