Latest Cases

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Intrasoft International SA (Intrasoft) for annulment of the decision by the European Commission not to award the consortium to which Intrasoft belonged a public service contract. The General Court decided that the risk of a conflict of interests had not been objectively established and the rejection of the bid of the consortium of which the applicant had been part had not been justified and contrary to the provisions of art 94 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002. 

Mental health – Patient's property. The Court of Protection made decisions regarding the patient's living arrangement and visitation rights of her family between whom there was considerable disagreement about various matter relating to her care and also to previous business dealings. The court held that publication of an anonymised judgment would be futile as so much information was already in the public domain and it was in the public interest for the court to publish its judgment in the case in a form that named individuals. 

Company – Director. The Companies Court allowed the applicant's application for permission to be involved in the management of two companies, notwithstanding that he had at that time been subject to a disqualification order for a period of seven years for falsifying accounts. The court held that, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, permission would be granted. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, when aged 17, had played the leading role in a violent murder, for which a tariff of 14 years had been imposed. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court, refused to recommend a reduction of the tariff, as the offender's progress had not been exceptional. 

Deed – Construction. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application to strike out the defendants' defences and for summary judgment in their favour, in proceedings concerning the purchase of a golf club. Unless the claimants successfully applied to amend their particulars of claim, the proceedings against the seventh defendant would be struck out. 

Immigration – Appeal. The appellants had been refused permission to seek judicial review of the certification of their human rights claims under s 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed their appeals, but dismissed the substantive judicial review applications. The court gave guidance on the interpretation of s 94B and its interplay with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Criminal law – Prosecutor. The claimant sought permission for judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's (the CPS) decision to prosecute him for rape, despite a previous decision not to proceed, and a judge's decision not to adjourn the hearing pending the determination of that challenge. The Divisional Court, in refusing permission, held that it was not remotely arguable that the CPS's decision had been irrational or unreasonable and the separate challenge to the judge's decision fell because that challenge failed. The judgment was citable as authoritative in relation to the proper approach to the Director of Public Prosecution's guidance on a victim's right to review and to claims made in respect of decisions to charge where the original decision had been not to charge. 

Company – Merger. The Companies Court considered an application under Regulation 16 of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007to approve a merger between two companies. It approved the merger, but suggested that the process by which the court had considered whether a merger should be approved, in the case of Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd, Re ([2012] EWHC 3576 (Ch)) might have gone beyond that which was required by the relevant European Union legislation. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division, despite the strong religious objections of the parents of two twin boys on a life support machine, allowed the NHS Trust's application for a declaration that it would be lawful and in the best interests of each child to withdraw or discontinue the ventilation, despite the lack of parental consent would be allowed. 

Criminal law – Company. The defendant civil engineering design company appealed against its conviction for two health and safety offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly determined that the issue as to whether there had been a material risk had been a matter for the jury and that there had been ample evidence of material risk.