Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. In earlier proceedings, the court had determined preliminary issues in a claim alleging professional negligence against defendant conveyancing solicitors, in which separate sample actions had been directed to be tried together. The court made rulings as to the appropriate orders for costs in all the circumstances. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The main issue in the proceedings was whether the first defendant was personally liable to repay the first to third claimants money which they or their companies had paid to the second defendant, which had then been deployed directly or indirectly in property deals in Dubai, which had been arranged by the first defendant. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim in respect of that issue, held that the first defendant had acted entirely in accordance with the mandate he had been given by the claimants in applying the money and there was no evidence or acknowledgement by him that he was personally liable to the claimants for any advances they had made. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Care proceedings were commenced in respect of a child, JC. The issue at trial was as to the level of the risk posed to the mother and JC by the father and whether such risk could be managed. The judge held that the risk could not be safely managed and made care and placement orders in respect of JC. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the mother and father's appeal, held that the judge had had all necessary information with which to reach the conclusions she had. 

Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture of lease. The district judge had made a declaration that a head lease held by the defendants be forfeited following the lapse of a stay that had been granted in respect of earlier possession proceedings. The defendants' appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division. It held that that judge had made a number of errors in his judgment and, in the circumstances, the defendants breaches of the covenants in the head lease had been remedied so it would be unjust and disproportionate to deprive them of their property. However, the defendants were ordered to pay certain costs in respect of the premises and head lease. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Dole Food Co, Inc. (Dole) and one of its subsidiaries against a decision of the General Court of the European Union which had upheld the decision by the European Commission to impose a fine on Dole and that subsidiary for participation in a concerted practice consisting of co-ordinating their quotation prices for bananas marketed in certain countries within the European Union. 

Limitation of action – Extension of time limit. The claimant brought a claim against in the defendant in libel. The defendant belatedly issued an application dated 19 June 2014 to strike out the claim on the footing that the claim form had not been issued within the limitation period, so that the claim was time-barred. The claimant sought to utilise s 34 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period. The Queen's Bench refused the application. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Regulation No 1408/71 (EC) 1408/71 (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community) should be interpreted as meaning that levies on income from assets, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, had, when they contributed to the financing of compulsory social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in art 4 of that regulation and thus fell within the scope of the regulation, even though those levies were imposed on the income from assets of taxable persons, irrespective of the pursuit by them of any professional activity. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant appealed against his conviction for threatening to destroy or damage property, alleging that the judge had erred in directing the jury that the test was whether he had intended the listener to fear that he might carry out the threat. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the listener could have the relevant fear, even where he was not certain that the threat would be carried out. Accordingly, there had been no misdirection as such and it had not rendered the verdict unsafe. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant sought declarations of non-liability in respect of claims which the first defendant, Petromena, had brought against it in Norway. Petromena appealed against an order refusing a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction over the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the order on the ground that the English court had jurisdiction under art 24 of the Lugano Convention, by reason of Petromena's appearance by filing a second acknowledgment of service. 

European Union – Internal market. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 25 of Directive (EC) 2003/55 (concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive (EC) 98/30), and of arts 41 and 54 of Directive (EC) 2009/73 (concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive (EC) 2003/55). The reference had been made in proceedings between E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt. and the Hungarian energy and public utility service regulator, concerning the amendment by that authority of the rules of the gas network code relating to long-term reserve capacity and managing congestion.