Latest Cases

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Mr Chafiq Ayadi for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban), in so far as that act concerned Mr Ayadi. 

Insolvency – Administration order. The applicant, in his capacity as a creditor of the company for the purposes of para 12(1)(c) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, sought an administration order to take effect retrospectively from November 2010. The court was being asked to make a retrospective order which would cure the fact of the void appointments of the purported present liquidators, by casting back over four years and validating the actions of those individuals, not as liquidators, but as administrators, in the intervening period, with a view to the company being moved by those freshly appointed administrators into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, the only appropriate outcome for the present administration application was to make an order for the compulsory winding-up of the company. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The appellant Professional Standards Authority referred to the Administrative Court the decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the CCC) of the first respondent Health and Care Professions Council (the Council), imposing a caution order for a period of five years for bullying and sexual harassment. The court, in dismissing the appeal, upheld the CCC's findings on three allegations and found it would be a gross breach of fair hearing procedure to allow their amendment after the evidence had been heard. Further, the sanction imposed by the CCC had not been unduly lenient, and its reasons had been intelligible and sufficient. 

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The present proceedings concerned whether certain passages in the claimants' re-amended particulars of claim should be struck out on the basis that they referred to matters protected by legal professional privilege. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held, inter alia, that privilege in the relevant documents had been waived by the fourth defendant and, failing that, the third defendant. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, in the context of a public contract not subject to Directive (EC) 2004/18 because its value fell below the threshold for application of that directive, but which had certain cross-border interest, which it was for the referring court to ascertain, the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the consequent obligation of transparency, should be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority could not reject a tender which satisfied the requirements of the contract notice on grounds which were not set out in that notice. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the employee's claims of disability discrimination and protected disclosure detrimental treatment on the basis that the employee had not complied with the requirements of the statutory grievance procedure in respect of both claims. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the employee's appeal to the limited extent that the tribunal ought to have considered itself bound by the previous pre-hearing review ruling that the pre-termination disability complaints had been sufficiently 'grieved'. However, the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that those complaints had been time-barred and failed on that separate jurisdictional ground. Since all the other grounds of appeal had failed, the EAT dismissed the appeal. 

Bank – Transaction. The respondent brought a claim against the appellant bank, alleging dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and a proprietary right to the proceeds of sale in respect of an art collection, which had been owned by her deceased father, but had been sold by her sister's friend. The proceeds could be traced to the bank through a number of transactions. The Chief Justice dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal of Gibraltar held in favour of the respondent. The issue was whether the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. The Privy Council, dismissing the bank's appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal for the most part that the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for credit card fraud, fraud by false representation, using a false ID card and providing falsified customs clearance documents committed in 2001. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that the delay had not been culpable. However, he had erred in failing to have regard or sufficient regard to the impact of the appellant's extradition on his son, particularly, as the circumstances went to reduce the public interest in the appellant's extradition. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant was convicted of rape and assault by penetration of his adult daughter, who had been placed for adoption shortly after birth, but had reunited with the defendant in her thirties. The defendant had contended at trial that sexual intercourse had been consensual. He appealed against conviction on the ground that, among other things, the judge's summing up had been deficient in that it had not gone into the detail of text messages sent the complainant to the defendant which contradicted her evidence that sex had been non-consensual. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, the conviction could not be held to be safe in the face of the deficiencies revealed by the summing up. 

Value added tax – Recovery of sums overpaid. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): (i) confirmed that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners could enter into agreements relating to repayments pursuant to s 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994; and (ii) suggested that such agreements were binding even if the position agreed by the Revenue was then judicially found to be wrong.