Latest Cases

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the notion of 'natural mineral water from one and the same spring' contained in art 8(2) of Directive (EC) 2009/54 had to be interpreted as referring to a natural mineral water that was drawn from one or more natural or bore exits, and which originated in one and the same underground water table or in one and the same underground deposit, where, at all those natural or bore exits, that water had identical characteristics, pursuant to the criteria specified in Annex I to the Directive, that remained stable within the limits of natural fluctuation. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 4(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of Directive (EC) 2000/60 (establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy). The request had been made in proceedings between the German federation for the environment and the conservation of nature and Germany, concerning a scheme to deepen various parts of the river Weser in the north of Germany, intended to enable larger container vessels to call at certain German ports. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had held that the employee, a disabled prison officer, had been unfairly dismissed by reason of his disability. It also found direct and indirect disability discrimination, disability related discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The employee was awarded compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer's appeal against the finding of liability where no error of law had been made out. However, the appeal concerning remedy was allowed and the matter remitted where the tribunal's findings in relation to past and future losses could not be sustained. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The appellant, who was aged 14 at the relevant time, had been photographed during a violent incident at an 'interface area' in Northern Ireland. The police were unable to ascertain his identity through other channels and so his image was authorised for publication in two newspapers with the aim of establishing his identity. The appellant sought judicial review of that authorisation, alleging that publication of his image had breached his right to respect for his private life contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. The test for a reasonable expectation of privacy had not been satisfied on the facts, which involved the publication, in the recent aftermath of criminal activity, of photographs taken of public rioting for the purpose of identifying those involved. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The applicant complained, under art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that his detention was arbitrary because the Parole Board had refused to recommend his release on the ground that he had not yet completed the extended sex offenders treatment programme, despite the fact that he had been unable to access that course. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that a real opportunity for rehabilitation had been provided to the applicant and there had been no unreasonable delay in providing him access to courses. Accordingly, there had been no violation of art 5(1) of the Convention. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The appellants had brought proceedings challenging the decision to use National Savings and Investments (NS&I) to deliver the Government policy of tax-free childcare. In order for NS&I to administer TFC, it was necessary to amend an outsourcing contract between NS&I and Atos IT Services Ltd. The claim was dismissed and the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding, inter alia, that the amendment of the contract would not be unlawful. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held, inter alia, that the proposed amendment to the contract would not considerably extend the scope of the contract in terms of reg 72(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102 and, therefore, it did not did not involve substantial modifications under reg 72(1)(e). 

Injunction – Freezing injunction. In earlier proceedings, the court had set aside a freezing injunction against the first defendant on the ground that it had been misled by the claimant's former solicitors and that the claimants had not come to the court with clean hands. The claimants sought permission to seek a freezing injunction in Singapore. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the application, held that, where it had already held that the conduct which had led to the setting aside of the freezing injunction had been particularly disgraceful conduct, it would not sanction the obtaining by the claimants of freezing relief either in the United Kingdom or anywhere else. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 7(4) of Directive (EC) 2008/115 should be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a third-country national, who was staying illegally within the territory of a member state, was deemed to pose a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision on the sole ground that he was suspected, or had been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The Queen's Bench Division, in deciding a defamation claim brought by the mother of a four year old girl in regard to the alerting of certain 'child safeguarding' services, held that although the words complained of bore the meanings alleged, which were later found to be unfounded, the staff at the defendant hospital had merely been responding in an appropriate manner to the mother's behaviour. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The claimant applied pursuant to s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to set aside an arbitrator's award, in circumstances where it contended that it had never agreed the terms of a draft time charter, including a London arbitration clause. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that, on the evidence, there had been no binding long term charter or arbitration clause and, accordingly, the arbitrator had had no jurisdiction.