Latest Cases

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. 

Probate – Document. The Chancery Division considered the validity of wills made by the deceased. It held that a will created in 1999 had not been properly executed, and would not be admitted to probate. However, the claimant charities had discharged the burden of proof that a will made in 1982 should be admitted. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Pleadings. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application to amend it's particulars of claim and ordered disclosure in respect of a claim for misrepresentation and breach of contract concerning the conduct of the defendant Royal Bank of Scotland in setting LIBOR. The court refused the defendant's application to amend its defence, but accepted its submission that it was open to a party to decide not to rely upon privileged material and, therefore, amend the relevant pleading, in which case, if the amended pleading was permitted, no waiver would have taken place merely by virtue of it having been pleaded before. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. That application had been presented in proceedings between SBS Belgium NV and the Belgian society for authors, composers and editors, regarding the obligation to pay a fair amount for the transmission of programmes via the technique of direct injection. 

Conflict of Laws – Jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that an application to strike out the second claimant company's claim for contribution, under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, in respect of its liability to owners of property damaged in fires, failed where the breaches of duty alleged against it had all occurred within the UK and, accordingly, the English Court had jurisdiction, under art 7(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) to hear the claim. In respect of the first defendant, the claim clearly involved matters relating to a contract and, accordingly, the defendant had be sued in Italy, being the member state in which it was domiciled.