Latest Cases

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Annex I, No 14, to Council Directive (EEC) 85/337 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as amended by Directive (EC) 2009/31. The request had been made in proceedings between the municipality of Strasswalchen, Austria, and other applicants and the Austrian Federal Minister for Economy, Family and Youth, concerning a decision authorising Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG to carry out exploratory drilling on the territory of the municipality. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, then aged 16, was convicted of murder and sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, with the minimum term of 14 years, less 367 days spent on remand. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court held that the offender's progress was not such that it satisfied the extremely high hurdle of being exceptional and unforeseen. Accordingly, the present was not a case in which any reduction in the offender's tariff could be recommended. 

Sentence – Length of sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of six years' imprisonment for six counts of the rape of a child under 13, contrary to s 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where there had been significantly aggravating features. The sentence was quashed and substituted for a sentence of nine years' imprisonment. 

Arbitration – Award. Following the making of an arbitration award against it, the claimant company, A, sought to have to award set aside, on the ground that the tribunal that had made it had lacked jurisdiction. The Commercial Court dismissed the application, holding that there was nothing in A's submissions to justify setting the award aside. 

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The defendant General Dental Council's Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) found allegations of dishonesty made out against the claimant dentist and erased him from the register. The appellant appealed on the basis that the PCC had erred in its application of the burden of proof. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the burden of proof had no weight in the context of a contested issue as a piece of evidence in itself. Accordingly, the appellant's criticism of the PCC's approach was conceptually flawed and had to fail. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Following the grounding of a vessel, proceedings arose between the parties. A dispute arose as to whether the claim should be heard in the English or Turkish jurisdiction. The English court issued an anti-suit injunction, preventing the issuing of proceedings in England against the claimant protection and immunity club. The Commercial Club held that, among other things, sufficient grounds existed to continue the anti-suit injunction. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In March 2015, a judge gave the mother permission to amend her pleadings in pending litigation in family proceedings to include a reference to a document/agreement in respect of which the father claimed without prejudice privilege. The father sought permission to appeal to impugn the decision of the judge to admit that agreement in evidence as being one which was wrong as a matter of law. The issue was whether the documents in question had come into being in contemplation of a dispute, actual or impending. The Family Division ruled that it could not be said that there had been between them a real dispute which was then capable of compromise. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to authorise variations to a contract with a developer to build a new mixed retail, residential and transport centre. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the variations to the contract had resulted in a contract which had been materially different in character and the authority's decision to authorise them, without having carried out a procurement process, as required by European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2004/18 and the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, SI 2006/5, had been unlawful. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Red Bull GmbH (Red Bull), established in Austria, for annulment of a decision of the Second Board Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull and Sun Mark Ltd concerning the application by Sun Mark for registration of the word sign 'BULLDOG' as a Community trade mark. 

Action – Dismissal. The claimant had brought a claim against the defendants, which had been dismissed. He brought another claim, essentially based on similar allegations. The defendants applied to strike out the new claim and for a civil restraint order. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendants' application, held that the claim would be struck out as an abuse of process. Further, it was appropriate for an extended civil restraint order to be made.