Latest Cases

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. The request had been made in proceedings between Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL (Hewlett-Packard) and Reprobel SCRL (Reprobel) concerning the recovery by Reprobel from Hewlett-Packard of sums corresponding to the fair compensation owed under exceptions to the reproduction right. 

European Union – Family proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 23(a) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a member state or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision did not allow a court of that member state which considered that it had jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another member state which had ruled on the custody of that child. 

Injunction – Exclusion of party from prescribed city area. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal against an order declining to discharge or vary an interim injunction to prevent gang-related violence. The judges below had not been confined to restraining particular conduct attributed to the appellant in the past and could restrain the appellant from engaging in conduct attributable to the gang as a whole. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between the Swedish Tax Board and Ms Hirvonen concerning the refusal by the Tax Board to grant her tax advantages on her income tax for 2005. 

Environment – Waste. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant quarry operator's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State's planning inspector that had resulted in the refusal of a standard rules environmental permit in relation to the restoration of a quarry site where the claimant had wished to use inert waste as the backfill material. The backfill operation ought properly to have been classified as a recovery operation within para R10 of Annex II to Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2008/98 and the inspector's decision was quashed. 

Town and country planning – Development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding that the judge's construction of the meaning of 'dependants' in an agricultural occupancy condition attached to planning permission in respect of a dwelling at a farm had been correct. The condition had not imposed a requirement as to the continuing profitability of the business in which the agricultural worker was employed. 

Deed – Trust deed. The Chancery Division set aside a deed purporting to place property into trust for the first respondent's wife, with the result that the claimant loan company was not able to commence possession proceedings against the first respondent. The court made an order restoring the position to what it would have been if the deed had not been made. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the appeal of the first defendant against a decision of a master not to strike out the claimant's libel claim on the basis that a fair trial was no longer possible and the delay was an abuse of process. 

Building contract – Extension of time. The Technology and Construction Court considered claims arising out of a venture to lay oil pipelines in the Shetland Islands. The court made rulings as to the various heads of liability. 

Public order – Football. The Administrative Court, in allowing the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeal against a limited football banning order, held that the justices had had no power to make a football banning order that had been limited to matches played between three named clubs. Further, no rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged and a comparison with anti-social behaviour order legislation was rejected.