Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Human rights – Infringement of human rights. The present case concerned the determination of preliminary issues in claims involving allegations of ill-treatment, unlawful detention and unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. The Administrative Court ruled on the circumstances in which art 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights applied. It further held that an investigative duty arose where there was an arguable breach of art 3 of the Convention and where an arguable violation of art 5 of the Convention amounted to an enforced disappearance. An investigative obligation under arts 2 or 3 of the Convention could not arise in circumstances where there had been no arguable substantive breach of arts 2 or 3 of the Convention. 

Contract – Illegality. The claimant carried on business as business transfer agents. It was common ground that the activities of the claimant fell within the definition of the expression 'estate agency work' in s 1(1) of the Estate Agents Act 1979. The relevance of that was the reference to 'estate agents' in the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, SI 07/2157. The parties entered into an agreement and a dispute arose. The claimant brought a claim based on the agreement. The defendant contended that the agreement was not enforcible for illegality. Applying established law, the Queen's Bench Division held that the agreement was illegal and was consequently unenforceable. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The defendant appealed against the judge's assessment of the value of the benefit from his conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs at £2,286,472.80 and the recoverable amount at £324,184.53. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division rejected his submission that there was no jurisdiction to make a confiscation order under that statute, as a forfeiture order had previously been made. However, it held that the judge had been wrong in his assessment of the value of the cocaine which had been unmatched by possession of an equivalent amount of diluting agent and the benefit figure fell to be reduced accordingly. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant suffered a serious injury whilst working the in defendant's garden. He brought a claim against the defendant for damages for breach of a duty of care on the basis that the relationship between the parties was akin to that of employer/employee. The Queen's Bench Division held that the relationship was not as alleged by the claimant and therefore the claim would be dismissed. 

Child – Care. An urgent application was made for a collection order regarding a vulnerable child. She was taken to a police station at 7.30pm, but was not collected until 3.02am. The Family Division stated that it was not acceptable for such an application to be granted by a judge and only then for inquiries to be made as to placement and transportation. It was incumbent on authorities to ensure that robust processes were in place. 

Social security – Income support. The claimant appealed against the judge's finding that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/688 were not ultra vires s 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that R (on the application of Reilly and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2014] 1 All ER 505), which quashed similar regulations, was not binding, as the present scheme contained some elements by way of 'description'. Further, the Regulations prescribed a description of the scheme within the meaning of s 17A(1) of the Act. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant association, which was concerned with the protection of the environment of the Shetland Islands, against the decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session to uphold the decision by the respondent Scottish Ministers to grant consent to developers for the construction and operation of a wind farm. The Court held, amongst other things, that, contrary to the decision of the Lord Ordinary, the duty of the respondents in considering such development proposals was not to conduct a full review of their functions under Directive (EC) 2009/147 (on the conservation of wild birds), but to take that directive into account as one of a number of material considerations in reaching a lawful decision whether to grant consent under the Electricity Act 1989. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union had dismissed the action by MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (MEGA) for annulment of decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between MEGA and Diset SA, concerning MEGA's application to register a figurative sign 'MAGNEXT' as a Community trade mark. The Court of Justice of the European Union decided that the operative parts of that judgment should be set aside on the basis that parts of MEGA's appeal had been well founded. Consequently, the Court referred the case back to the General Court for completion of its assessment of the facts.