Latest Cases

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal bought by Mr Anbouba by which he had requested that the court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of various decisions and regulations made by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as his name appeared on the lists of the persons to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied. 

Newspaper – Publishing. The appellant was the editor of a regional paper which published a report in breach of a reporting restriction order imposed under s 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The judge rejected the appellant's submission that he had no case to answer, after which he pleaded guilty and was fined. The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the editor of a newspaper did not, as a matter of law, fall outside the scope of the expression 'any person who publishes' in s 39(2) of the Act. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal bought by Mr Anbouba by which he had requested that the Court set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had dismissed his action for annulment of various decisions and regulations made by the European Council concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as his name appeared on the lists of the persons to whom the restrictive measures decided upon under those acts applied. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of two years and two hundred days' imprisonment, in respect of two counts of theft and four counts of domestic house burglary had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where the offender had a 'truly terrible' criminal record. The sentence was substituted for one of four-a-half years' imprisonment. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of art 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person had constructed was to be the purchase price, at the time the application was made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics were similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it was irrelevant whether part of the purchase price was represented by interim interest. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The shareholders of three companies (the companies) brought three unfair prejudice petitions against the respondents, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006. The petitioners applied for final relief on their petitions on the basis that the respondents had failed to comply with an order requiring them to answer the request for information. The respondents applied for relief against sanctions under CPR Part 3.9. The Companies Court held that, subject to considering the relief from sanctions application and consequent on the failure to comply with an order of the court, the amended points of defence stood struck out. There had been no, or no sufficient, explanation of the reasons for the delay and considerations, which bore on the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the importance of compliance with court orders, pointed in only one direction: refusal of the application for relief in relation to the present matter. 

Practice – Striking out. The present proceedings arose from a dispute over a joint venture agreement originally made in 1981. Following attempts at arbitration and a decision by the Supreme Court, the claimant, H, brought a fresh claim. The Commercial Court allowed an application by the defendant, J, to strike out the claim, on the grounds that, in bringing the present proceedings, H had vexed J with litigation twice in circumstances that amounted to harassment of J. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant underwent a procedure at a hospital for which the defendant NHS Trust had responsibility for. He was not warned of the possibility of post-operative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. He presented at the hospital feeling unwell, but failed to mention calf pain as a symptom. He later suffered bilateral pulmonary emboli originating from the main right and left pulmonary arteries. He brought a claim for personal injuries and damages on the basis that he ought to have been warned of the risk of pulmonary embolism. The defendant contended that the claimant had himself been contributory negligent. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant had been in breach of duty and that that had caused the claimant's injury. It followed that there had to be judgment for the claimant for the total agreed sum. 

Company – Liquidation. A company in voluntary creditors liquidation was engaged in a construction dispute with a school. The school put in a proof of debt, which the company's liquidators had yet to approve. The school contended that an arbitration clause in the construction contract was binding and continued to apply despite the company being in liquidation. The liquidators of the company applied for directions, contending that the court had power, under r 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, in connection with the proof of debt process, to give directions as to the taking of an account of the balance due between the company and the school. The Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the arbitration clause trumped the taking of an account under the court's directions as envisaged by the Insolvency Rules. The arbitration agreement had not become inoperative following liquidation of the company. 

Local authority – Social services. The claimant, who suffered from severe epilepsy, and had a number of mental health and behavioural difficulties, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision not to continue to fund his present specialist placement and its assessment of his needs. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's assessment demonstrated a failure to understand and address the claimant's medical and support needs. Further, its decision had amounted to an unlawful interference with the claimant's rights to respect for home and private life.