Latest Cases

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of: (i) art 4 of Council Directive (EEC) 79/7 (on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security) and; (ii) cl 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement( on part-time work), set out in the Annex to Council Directive (EC) 97/81 of (concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC), as amended. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign law. The claimant New Zealand nationals claimed damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from defective prosthetic hip implants manufactured by the defendant. The proceedings concerned the determination of the preliminary issue of whether their claims were precluded by s 317 of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Act 2001. The Queen's Bench Division held that the statutory bar in s 317(1) of the Act had substantive effect and its application was not limited to the courts of New Zealand. Further, there was no additional conduct or other requirement under New Zealand law before the statutory bar in s 317(1) of the Act applied. 

European Union – Commission. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by the European Council for annulment of the decision of the European Commission by which the Commission had withdrawn its proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions for macro-financial assistance to third countries. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant Secretary of State, complaining that women had been the subject of unlawful sex discrimination as a result of the arrangements for placing prisoners in approved premises (APs). The basis of the claim was that the configuration of APs meant that it was necessarily and inevitably harder to place women close to their home than men. The judge held, inter alia, that there had been no discrimination, either direct or indirect. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that direct discrimination had not been established and there had been no indirect discrimination. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant debtor applied for permission to appeal a decision striking out her defence and counterclaim in relation to a claim by the bank for monies allegedly secured by a mortgage on a property. The Queen's Bench Division held that justice would be furthered if permission was granted. 

Expenses – Protective expenses order. Court of Session: Granting a motion by a community council and its elected members, who had appealed against a local authority's decision to make a traffic management and parking control order, seeking a protective expenses order at common law to limit the community council's potential liability in expenses, the court held that a protective expenses order was justified, as the appeal had real prospects of success and the grounds of appeal raised issues of general public importance and the public interest required that those issues should be resolved, and the community council's liability in expenses to the respondents should be limited to £1,000. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The father appealed against the judge's refusal of his application for an adjournment and for a rehearing of the care proceedings relating to four of his children. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held that, as to the refusal of an adjournment, the judge had conducted the appropriate balancing exercise and reached a conclusion which could not be categorised as wrong. As to the refusal of a rehearing, it could not be seen upon what basis the court could conclude that the earlier findings needed revisiting in order to reach the right decision in the interests of the children. 

Contract – Construction. The present proceedings concerned the property investment arrangements between the claimant and the first defendant. The Chancery Division ruled on preliminary issues concerning, first, when and how the contract between the claimant and first defendant was made and, second, the terms of the contract. 

Negligence – Joint tortfeasors. The second defendant lifeguard and a swimming teacher were found to have been liable in negligence for injuries suffered when the claimant nearly drowned during the course of a school swimming lesson. The third defendant local authority was found to have breached its duty of care owed to the claimant. The authority sought a complete indemnity of 100% of its liability to the claimant from the second defendant or a contribution of 50%. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was not just and equitable that the second defendant indemnified the authority for the totality of the claimant's damage. However, the second defendant should contribute one third to the authority's liabilities to the claimant, in respect of damage and legal costs. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. Upon the father's application, the judge made an order that the mother return or cause the return of their son, S, to the jurisdiction of Morocco. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the mother's appeal, held that Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 did not apply to the present case and that the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996 did not confer jurisdiction to make the order that had been made. The return order would be set aside and an order dismissing the father's application would be substituted.