Latest Cases

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. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising from a ban on the export of wheat from Russia, which had prevented the carrying out of an agreement to sell wheat between the defendant seller and the claimant buyer. The GAFTA Board of Appeal held that the seller was liable to the buyer. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Appeal had been right to find against the seller in liability, but that, applying the principle in Golden Strait Corpn v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha ([2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)the award of the Board of Appeal would be varied to substitute a sum of nominal damages. 

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. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimant contractor sought summary judgment on its application to enforce an award against the defendant employer, under a construction contract, granted in the second of two adjudications. The Technology and Construction Court held that documents sent by a claimant to the defendant did not amount to a valid application for an interim payment, or a valid payee's notice and as such, the adjudicator in the second adjudication had been wrong to conclude to the contrary. The claimant was not entitled to summary judgment in respect of the second adjudication as no sums were due to it as a consequence of it. 

Conflict of laws – Applicable law – Civil procedure – Limitation of actions. Court of Session: In an action by the trustees of a retirements benefits scheme, who took out a deferred annuity guarantee contract (DAGC) policy with a mutual life office and engaged the first defender, an employee of the life office, as a scheme actuary, claiming damages for breach of contract and negligence in relation to the advice the first defender gave them in 1999 concerning their decision to switch the scheme's assets from a DAGC to a managed fund contract, the court held that, as the defenders maintained, the proper law of the contract between the pursuers and the first defender, and of the alleged delict, was English law, and that under English law the pursuers' claim was statute barred in terms of the Limitation Act 1980. 

Company – Register of members. The proceedings concerned the beneficial ownership of the fourth defendant company. The claimants sought an order for rectification of the membership. The defendants counterclaimed, contending that the first defendant, I, was the sole beneficial owner of the company. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not proved his case. The claim was allowed and the counterclaim was dismissed. 

Bankruptcy – Discharge. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant bankrupt's appeal against part of an order directing an examination under ss 333 and 336 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The order had been made on the application of the trustee on the ground that the claimant had failed to disclose his financial details. The court declined to interfere with the order where the requests for disclosure by the trustee had been reasonable and where the claimant had steadfastly refused to provide the trustee with the necessary information relating to his pension fund which would enable the trustee to carry out an investigation. 

Costs – Order for costs. In earlier proceedings the claimants had been awarded damages against the defendant proprietor of three newspapers for the infringements of privacy rights based on phone hacking, private investigators and publication of articles in the defendant's newspapers. They sought indemnity costs relying on CPR Pt 36 offers, which had not been accepted and on the defendant's alleged unreasonable conduct in the litigation. The Chancery Division dismissed the applications. The Pt 36 offer by one defendant had lost much of its significance as a result of its withdrawal and a 'Calderbank' offer in respect of the other defendant was weaker by having never been a Pt 36 offer. The defendant's conduct had not been so unreasonable as to warrant the making of an indemnity costs order. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a case of slander brought by the claimant, a 'disfellowshipped' Jehovah's Witness, against the defendants (also Jehovah's Witnesses), the Queen's Bench dismissed an appeal by the defendants against a master's refusal to strike out the claim on the basis that cases for slander were fact specific and unsuitable for summary disposal unless clear cut. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Indian nationals sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing their application for leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not given any consideration to para 276ADE of the Immigration Rules in her decision as to the first and second applicants, which also rendered the decision as to the third claimant unlawful. Her further decision could not render academic those failings, as it had done no more than adopt the conclusions and reasoning found in the earlier unlawful decision.