Latest Cases

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The claimant former bankrupts brought a claim alleging that the defendant trustees had failed to do his job properly and that he had mismanaged their estates, thereby causing them loss and damage. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that a surplus in the bankrupt's estate did not give rise to a duty in the tort of negligence on the trustee's part to the bankrupt. A trustee did not owe a bankrupt a duty at common law outside of s 304 of the Insolvency Act 1996 and, further, it was not part of the trustee's role to review the legitimacy of a judgment affecting a bankrupt, which directly or indirectly had been subject to appeals which had been rejected. 

Sale of goods – Contract. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimants' appeal against the preliminary rulings of arbitrators in a contractual dispute. The court held, among other things, that the contract in issue was not one to which the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applied. 

Shipping – Carriage by sea. In a claim for personal injury brought against the appellant, the appellant sought a contribution from the respondent. The respondent successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the claim on the basis that the right on which the personal injury claim had been brought had been extinguished through art 16 of the Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (the Athens Convention). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal. It held that the claim for a contribution had not been one to which the Athens Convention had applied. Further, the language of art 16 of the Athens Convention was not such as to extinguish the right on which the claim was based. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Technology and Construction Court considered a procurement dispute arising out of a tender process undertaken by the defendant Milton Keynes local authority for the award of a framework agreement for asbestos removal. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The appellants had issued proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) against their assessment to landfill tax. They were then permitted to bring judicial review proceedings founded on their legitimate expectations arising out of negotiations for repayments of overpaid landfill tax. The Revenue's application for a stay of the judicial review proceedings was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' appeal as the taxpayers were entitled to pursue either or both remedies and, it was not clear what the Revenue's case would be in the judicial review, so it was uncertain whether there was any overlap of fact in the two sets of proceedings. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that two questions referred to it for a preliminary ruling by the Italian national court concerning the interpretation of arts 49, 102 and 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of art 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were inadmissible as both questions failed to provide the Court with the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer as required by art 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. 

Data protection – Processing of information. The Divisional Court, in allowing the claimants' application for judicial review, declared that s 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was incompatible with the requirements of European Union law insofar as it: (i) did not lay down clear and precise rules on access to, and use of, retained communications data to be strictly restricted to the purpose of preventing and detecting precisely defined serious offences or of conducting criminal prosecutions; and (ii) access to the data was not made dependent on a prior review by a court or an independent administrative body. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the application under s 120 of the Enterprise Act 2002 by Ryanair Holdings plc (Ryanair) for a review of the final report by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) into Ryanair's minority stake in Aer Lingus Group plc. That report had concluded that Ryanair's stake had resulted in a substantial lessening of competition and, as remedial action, had required Ryanair to reduce its stake in Aer Lingus. The tribunal upheld the CMA's decision that there had been no material change in circumstances such as to require the CMA to consider remedial action different from that set out in its final report. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, re-opened the defendant's appeal, in circumstances where the transcript of the Crown Court proceedings was found to be defective and the court's previous finding that there had been no conviction of the defendant on the relevant count had been incorrect. The court applied the jurisdiction based on the principles set out by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division in Taylor v Lawrence [2002] 2 All ER 353. 

Criminal Law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice, handed down, an amendment to the Criminal Practice Directions, to take effect from 16 July and 5 October 2015. The Practice Directions replaced Practice Directions at CPD I General Matters 3A Case management, and at CPD VI Trial 39M Jury irregularity.