Latest Cases

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. 

Tax – Avoidance. The appellants were affected by retrospectively effective legislative changes to s 45 of the Finance Act 2003 relating to stamp duty land tax. They contended that those changes infringed art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1) and art 6 of the Convention. They were refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the respondents. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that A1P1 had not been engaged by the imposition of the legislative changes and, if it had been, the changes had been lawful and proportionate. Article 6 was also not engaged, since tax proceedings did not relate to the determination of a 'civil' right or obligation. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted interim injunctions under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 prohibiting the defendants, whom it was alleged held anti-Muslim views, from entering any mosque or Islamic Cultural Centre or its private grounds within England and Wales without prior written invitation, publishing, distributing or displaying, or causing to be published, distributed or displayed, any words or images, whether electronically or otherwise, which having regard to all the circumstances were likely to stir up religious and/or racial hatred. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (dm-drogerie) against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie and Disenos Mireia, SL, concerning the application by the latter company for registration of a figurative sign representing a highly stylised capital letter 'M' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) rejecting the Revenue's case that the FTT had erred in: (i) its approach to the characterisation of loan broking services as made by a company to which Mr Newey had transferred his loan broking business; and (ii) deciding that the arrangements at issue had not constituted an abuse practice. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimants sought judicial review of the issue and execution of two search warrants issued on the second defendant's application by the first defendant magistrates' court. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that no warrants had been necessary, as neither premises were used exclusively as a dwelling and reg 21(1) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277, sufficed. Everything had been done within scope and nothing had been seized to which the second defendant had not been entitled. Accordingly, the warrants would be quashed, but no orders made for other relief. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The proceedings related to claims made by the defendant company (OMV) that the claimant companies had failed to pay calls under an agreement. The claimants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the International Chamber of Commerce. The defendant sought a stay of the proceedings, on the basis that the ICC should determine the question of jurisdiction. The Commercial Court held that the defendant's application would be allowed and the claimant's application would fail. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Afghani national claimed damages for unlawful immigration detention for 19 days. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to show that his serious mental illness could not be satisfactorily managed in conditions of detention. The Secretary of State had been correct and, in any event, had been entitled to the view that the claimant had not fallen into the category of someone in respect of whom there had been independent evidence of torture. Further, it could not be said that a reasonable time to effect deportation had expired. 

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.