Latest Cases

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant businessman and Russian citizen brought an action in libel in the United Kingdom in respect of a publication in the jurisdiction of England and Wales by the defendant who was a journalist and lived in Russia. Steps had been taken to serve the proceedings on the defendant in Moscow, but the validity of those steps was disputed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the proceedings could continue. Directions would be needed, and it would be appropriate to consider not just case management but also costs management. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1, 6(1) and section (a) of the first paragraph of art 9 of Council Directive (EEC) 85/374 (on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning liability for defective products). The requests had been made in an appeal on a point of law between Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH (BSMG), and AOK Sachsen-Anhalt — Die Gesundheitskasse and Betriebskrankenkasse RWE, compulsory health insurance organisations, concerning requests for reimbursement of the costs relating to the implantation of pacemakers and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator imported and marketed in the European Union by G. GmbH a company which subsequently merged with BSMG. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted a decision to the effect that Eni SpA and Versalis SpA had infringed EU competition law, thereby imposing a fine on them. The General Court of the European Union had confirmed the legality of the Commission's decision, save that it had reduced the fine imposed. Both parties appealed, the Commission requesting that the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) should set aside that judgment in so far as it had reduced the amount of the fine. Eni and Versalis contended that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it had dismissed their joint action at first instance. The Court dismissed both appeals. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The applicant, a former junior trader at an investment bank in London, sought judicial review of the Financial Conduct Authority's decision to terminate an investigation into him. The Administrative Court dismissed the application and held that the decision to terminate the investigation had been rational. The matters which it had taken into account had been legitimate considerations and it had been for the FCA to determine what weight to give to them. It could not be said that the weight given to any consideration had been manifestly disproportionate. Further, the decision had been lawful. 

Building – Building operations. The claimants employed the first defendant engineers and the second defendant construction company to enlarge their cellar. The claimants house completely collapsed, and they brought proceedings for negligence. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not acted negligently, but the overwhelming probability that the second defendant had negligently failed to carry out its work with reasonable care and skill was established. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, increased the offender's sentence for offences of possession of a prohibited firearm from a total of 20 months' imprisonment to a total of five years' imprisonment, in circumstances where the sentencing judge had been very much affected by a medical report on the critical condition of the offender's infant daughter. 

Damages – Personal injury. Whilst working for the defendant employer British Telecom, the claimant was injured. He brought an action for damages against the defendant alleging, inter alia, breach of Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 SI2306/98 and regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, SI 635/1989. The Queen's Bench Division held that the breach had been made out and that the claimant was entitled to damages to be assessed, subject to a reduction of one third in respect of contributory negligence. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The applicant had been dissatisfied with the amount of a tax free cash lump sum paid to him under his pension which was administered by the respondent company. He took his complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman, who rejected his assertion that the respondent had wrongly deducted from the lump sum an amount due under a loan secured against the policy. The judge then refused the applicant permission to appeal against that determination. The Chancery Division, in refusing the applicant's request for the court to reconsider that refusal, held that, in the circumstances of the unpaid loan which had been secured against his policy, it had been unsurprising that the lump sum had been reduced. 

Building contract – Insurance. Following an incident, in which a crane toppled from the concrete supporting structure that had been built by the defendant, the claimant insurance company had sought a declaration of non-liability under the defendant's Miles Smith Building Services Combined Contractors' Liability Policy. The judge had refused to grant the declaration sought. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and made a declaration that: (i) on the proper construction of the foundation clause in the policy, the crane had been a 'superstructure' within the meaning of the policy; (ii) the works carried out by the defendant in constructing the crane base and installing the dowel bars had been foundation works within the meaning of the policy; and (iii) any liability that might be established against the defendant in respect of the damage to the crane itself was a liability excluded under the foundation clause. 

Prison – Life sentence. The claimant prisoner sought judicial review of the decision to classify him as high escape risk. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application in part, held that, although information relating to the work the claimant had done in prison and the reports in his favour had been omitted from consideration in the initial decision, a subsequent review had been entitled to conclude that the additional information would not materially have affected the decision. Further, the reasons had been adequate and there had been no conflation of the tests for determining security classification and escape risk classification.