Latest Cases

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant transferred 1,000 shares in a company incorporated in Jersey to the first defendant as part of a joint venture. He brought a claim contending that the first defendant had failed to pay him the agreed share price and, against the two defendants, for unlawful means conspiracy. The Chancery Division held that on the evidence, the claim against the first defendant for payment of the price of the shares succeeded. The claim for unlawful means conspiracy failed where the claimant had failed to establish that he had suffered any loss by reason of the matters complained of. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction, rejecting the defendant's grounds of appeal regarding the admission of bad character evidence. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The second defendant local planning authority issued an enforcement notice against a range of unauthorised activities taking place on the site in question. The first defendant Secretary of State's inspector granted temporary planning permission for two years and imposed a noise cap. The interested party applied for planning permission to make the permission a permanent one. The Secretary of State issued a screening direction and planning permission was granted. The claimant's application for judicial review failed and the judge and declined to quash either the screening direction or the grant of a planning permission. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held, inter alia, that the judge had been wholly entitled to have concluded that concerns about enforceability of the cap did not affect the underlying measurement of noise which was relevant for the test on screening, namely, whether the noise was likely to be significant. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things, that Directive (EC) 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market) had to be interpreted as meaning that the communication, by a professional to a consumer, of erroneous information, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, should be classified as a 'misleading commercial practice', within the meaning of that directive, even though that information concerned only one single consumer. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by adopting and maintaining in force the tax scheme provided for in para 6b of the German Law on Income Tax, Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. 

Copyright – Infringement. The principal issue raised by the appeal was whether a technical drawing containing details of a septic tank was capable of protection under the Copyright Act (Ch 323). The Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas held that it was not and reversed the decision of the trial judge who had held that it was. The Privy Council held that the decision of the Court of Appeal on that issue had been wrong. The judge had been right in having held that, although the appellants could not prevent copying the septic tank itself, they had been entitled to prevent copying of the technical drawing. 

Divorce – Separation. Following the conclusion of the parties' marriage, the wife made applications seeking orders regarding a property in London. S, a company in which the husband had shares, and which he had established, made a claim against the wife for possession of the property. The Family Division held that the property would be transferred to the wife, as would her shareholding in S. S's application was dismissed. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee sought ill-health retirement on the basis of chronic degenerative condition of his spine. Shortly after doctors had reported that he was permanently unfit to work, the employee was observed displaying a range of movements. He was subsequently dismissed on the basis that he had allegedly exaggerated his condition. The employment tribunal held that, while the employee had genuinely believed in the employee's guilt and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, the employer had not had reasonable grounds for its belief. The tribunal further allowed a claim for wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal had taken the wrong approach and had substituted its own view as to whether the employee had exaggerated. The tribunal had further erred in its conclusion on wrongful dismissal. The claim was remitted. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant bank had been given permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction in relation to claims for breach of contract and unlawful conspiracy. The third and fifth defendants unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and held that the judge had erred in granting permission when the gateway requirements in para 3.1(3), (9) and (20) of Practice Direction 6B had not been met. Further, the case was more closely connected with Russia, so the judge had erred in finding England to be the appropriate forum. Finally, he had erred in the exercise of his general discretion. 

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. The Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice handed down new Practice Directions and amendments to the existing Practice Directions supplementing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.