Latest Cases

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 – Family proceedings. The Family Court considered expert evidence in family proceedings relating to: (i) the capacity of a witness to give evidence; (ii) the witness veracity. The court held that in the present case, it had been unnecessary to order a veracity assessment in order to assist the children's ability to give evidence. 

Housing – Local authority. The defendant Secretary of State decided that the claimant local authority was obliged to fund NA's accommodation, as he was ordinarily resident in its area. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on s 24(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948, deeming a person ordinarily resident in a local authority area when he was, in fact, ordinarily resident elsewhere. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that both references to residential accommodation in s 24(5) of the Act concerned that provided under the Act and that the deeming provision had no effect on the conclusion that NA was ordinarily resident in the claimant's area. 

Criminal law – Committal. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants in respect of his having been in remanded in custody in respect of offences under the Identity Cards Act 2006. His claims for a declaration and damages for breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the tort of false imprisonment were struck out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal in respect of the art 5 claims. It held, inter alia, that it was implicit in art 5(1)(c), as well as art 5(3) of the Convention, that the investigating/prosecuting authorities were required to bring the relevant facts to the attention of the court as soon as possible. The claimant's appeal in respect of false imprisonment was dismissed. 

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 – Patents. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union was founded. The request had been made in proceedings between Merck Canada Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd and Sigma Pharmaceuticals plc, concerning the importation into the United Kingdom of a pharmaceutical product called 'Singulair' from Poland. 

Competition – Merger. The first respondent Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) had concluded that the minority stake held by the appellant, Ryanair, in the second respondent, Aer Lingus, had resulted in a substantial lessening of competition. The CMA ordered Ryanair to reduce its stake to 5% (the divestiture order). The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed Ryanair's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing Ryanair's appeal, held, inter alia, that the consultation process had not been procedurally unfair to Ryanair and the divestiture order had been neither ultra vires nor disproportionate. 

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. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant bank employee brought a claim for damages against the defendant bank for personal injuries in respect of a lifting injury sustained during the course of her employment. The Queen's Bench Division found that in the light of the evidence the court was satisfied that the tasks required of the claimant by the bank had not involved heavy lifting or indeed any lifting which involved a risk of injury. The claimant had failed to establish either breach of duty or causation by reason of the findings of fact. 

Intellectual property – Design. The claimant clothing company brought proceedings against the defendants, alleging that they had been involved in alleged infringement in the United Kingdom unregistered design rights in the design of a pair of jeans. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the claim against the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants would succeed.