Latest Cases

Insurance – Reinsurance. The Commercial Court considered preliminary issues in a dispute between the claimant insurer and the defendant reinsurer. The court held that a loss suffered by a company ensured by the claimant, BVC, had been suffered each time money paid into an escrow account by BVC was drawn down by a third party. As a result, the issue would be determined in favour of the claimant and the other preliminary issues would fall away. 

European Union – Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Directive (EC) 2008/115 (on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals) in particular, arts 6(1) and 8(1), read in conjunction with art 4(2) and (3), should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provided, in the event of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of that state, depending on the circumstances, for either a fine or removal, since the two measures were mutually exclusive. 

Criminal evidence – Character of accused. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, heard five appeals together as they each raised the same issue, namely the extent and nature of the good character direction. The court gave guidance as to the extent and nature of the good character direction. It held that, in some respects the law had taken a wrong turn, and that the court remained bound by principles it derived from R v Vye; R v Wise; R v Stephenson([1993] 3 All ER 241) and R v Aziz ([1995] 3 All ER 149). 

European Union – Regulations. Following the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008, it was agreed that all standardised over-the-counter derivatives should be cleared through a central counterparty and reported to trade repositories. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which was established to ensure supervision of European Union's financial system, applied to the High Court in England for authorisation to carry out an inspection at the premises in England of the respondent trade repository. The Chancery Division granted the application, having been satisfied that it was appropriate to do so on the documentation submitted. Consideration was given to the circumstances in which future applications for authorisation by either ESMA or the Financial Services Authority, pursuant to reg 17 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Over the Counter Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/504, could be made to the court on the papers. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Iglotex SA against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Iglo Foods Group Ltd, established in the United Kingdom, and Iglotex SA, concerning the application by Iglotex SA for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'IGLOTEX' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 4(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Van Hove and CNP Assurances SA concerning an allegedly unfair contractual term in an insurance contract that included the definition of 'total incapacity for work' for the purposes of that company's cover of repayments on mortgage loans taken out by Mr Van Hove. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) dismissed the appeal brought by LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd, requesting that the Court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union whereby the General Court had: (i) varied Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final relating to a proceeding under art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the contested decision), by setting at €210,00,000 the fine imposed jointly and severally on them; and (ii) dismissed, as to the remainder, their action for the partial annulment of that decision, in so far as it concerned them, and for a reduction in the amount of that fine. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve sentences for stealing and intentionally dealing in stolen property, pursuant to three European arrest warrants (EAWs). The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge's decision that the appellant would be entitled to a retrial or appeal could not stand and he had to be discharged from extradition pursuant to EAW 3. However, his appeal was dismissed in relation to EAW 1 and EAW 2, as he could not rely on the delay, and his extradition was proportionate and necessary. 

Negligence – Defence. The claimant, DM, brought a claim in respect of injuries suffered in an accident, in which the stolen or unlawfully taken trials bike, ridden far too fast by the first defendant and upon which DM was riding as a pillion passenger, collied with a minibus driven by the third defendant, DB. The judge rejected the defence of ex turpi causa and found DB had driven negligently, although damages were reduced by 45% to reflect DM's contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the relationship between DM's turpitude, namely, his participation in the joint enterprise to ride the bike dangerously, and his claim in negligence against DB, was not such as to debar the claim. The causal contribution of the dangerous riding of the bike could and should be taken into account in the assessment of contributory negligence. 

Sale of land – Condition. The Chancery Division considered the interpretation of a contract for the purchase of a property. The defendant sought to rescind the contract between the parties, on the ground that an event of default had occurred, as defined by the contract. The claimant submitted that, since a term in the contract was to be taken as meaning that time was of the essence, it was not possible for the rescission to occur. The court held that, on the true construction of the contract, time had been of the essence, and so the claimant was entitled to succeed.