Latest Cases

Employment – Trade union. The Privy Council dismissed the appeal by ArcelorMittal Lisas Ltd (ArcelorMittal) against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) to uphold the judgment of the Industrial Court of Trinidad and Tobago by which that court had granted the Steel Workers Union of Trinidad and Tobago a declaration that ArcelorMittal should be deemed to be the employer under labour only contracts of all those persons employed by so-called contractors and that the employer was bound to apply collective agreements entered into by the parties to those contract workers. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Technology and Construction Court following the approach in the case of CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd and others [2015] All ER (D) 86 (Mar) made decisions on the costs budget as submitted by the claimant in respect of an unexceptional contract case. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court recognised that although the claim brought in 2014 could to have been brought in litigation brought in 2011, it nevertheless was not an abuse of process and would not be struck out as such. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimants applied for an order for the committal of the defendant to prison, under CPR 71.8, for breach of a court order. The Chancery Division found the defendant in contempt in some respects and adjourned the committal application, with directions that the defendant depose specified matters and provide identified documents. 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant Afghani nationals sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to remove them to Afghanistan. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the applications, held that there was no illegality or irrationality in the decisions, despite the possibility of a revised memorandum of understanding as to repatriation of Afghan nationals. Further, there was no warrant for departing from the country guidance in AK Afghanistan v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2012] UKUT 00163 (IAC)). 

Criminal law – Murder. The defendants were convicted of murder in the context of a feud between two Turkish drug gangs. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the second defendant's appeal against his sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure, with a minimum term of 18 years custody, and the fourth defendant's appeals against conviction and his sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 33 years. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union upheld the action brought by Knauf Insulation Technology (Knauf) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Knauf and Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL, regarding the application by Knauf for registration of a figurative sign depicting the words 'ECOSE TECHNOLOGY' as a Community trade mark. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. In the first case in which an application for a notification order under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 had been contested in respect of a person convicted outside the United Kingdom of a corresponding foreign offence, the Administrative Court refused the order. Given the United States judge's finding that the defendant did not pose a threat, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had not established that interference with the defendant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been justified. 

Arbitration – Award. The appellant appealed against decisions of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, following an arbitration concerning the parties' agreement. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeals, held that the Court of Appeal had erred in setting aside the arbitrator's finding that the appellant had validly terminated the agreement. Further, the arbitrator would have to reconsider the sums which he allowed the respondent to raise by way of set-off or cross-claims. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed the application to appoint successive deputies for a young woman, H, aged 26, pursuant to s 19(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. In so deciding, the factor of magnetic importance was that the appointment of successive deputies would give H's parents peace of mind.