Latest Cases

Contract – Condition. Following early termination by the claimant of an ISDA Master Agreement, the claimant sought summary judgment on its claim for money said to be owed. The application was dismissed due to the claimant's failure to provide the defendants with sufficient details of how the sum claimed had been calculated. The claimant provided further calculations, more than two years after termination of the agreement, and again applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court allowed the application as, on the proper construction of cl 6(d) of the ISDA Master Agreement, the second notification, although late, had been effective and so the sums owed had been payable under that clause. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 should be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker constituted a 'disability' within the meaning of that directive where it entailed a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers could hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It was for the national court to determine whether those conditions were met. 

Negligence – Duty of care. The issue in the first claim whether the defendant, in acting an the claimants' investment fund manager, had acted in breach of fiduciary duty, in breach of contract, and negligently. In the second claim, the issue was whether the defendant chief executive officer of the defendant in the first claim had dishonestly assisted it to breach its fiduciary duties and induced its breaches of contract. The Commercial Court held that the claimants in both claims were entitled to remedies against both defendants. 

Nursing and midwifery – Professional conduct. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal against a decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Conduct and Competence Committee, which found the appellant guilty of serious misconduct and issued a striking off order, the court held that the appellant's representation in connection with the proceedings before the committee was inadequate and that the committee erred in law by accepting the methodology the respondents relied on to identify the person said to be responsible for taking drugs from the ward where the appellant worked without authorization. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling that art 6(2)(c) of Directive (EC) 98/44 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions) should be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development had been stimulated by parthenogenesis did not constitute a 'human embryo', within the meaning of that provision, if, in the light of current scientific knowledge, that ovum did not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, that being a matter for the national court to determine. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned the Britax pension fund. Following the decision in Barber-v-Guardian Royal Exchange Group (C-262/88)[1991] 1 QB 344, it had become necessary for the employer to equalise the normal pensionable age (NPA) of members of fund. The claimants brought a claim contending that a trust deed and rules executed in 2000 had been ineffective to change the NPA as from 1991 as required. They contended that the defendant, which had provided actuarial and investment consultancy services to the second claimant employer, had been negligent in the advice it had provided. A master granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the claim was time-barred. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the master had not applied the wrong test in determining the issue of constructive knowledge. 

Company – Winding-up. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills presented a petition for the winding up of a company in the public interest. The main issue was whether the court should dispense with advertisement of the petition, accelerate the hearing of the petition and grant the winding up order on the day of the hearing. The Chancery Division, held that, in circumstances where the petition was in the public interest, it was entirely appropriate for the court to dispense with advertisement of the petition. The shareholders of the company would not be prejudiced by accelerating the hearing of the petition and, on the facts, the case was one where the company should be wound up in the public interest. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The receiver appointed over the defendant's assets as a result of a confiscation order against him sought, amongst other things, an order permitting him to sell a property and to use the funds to satisfy the confiscation order. The Administrative Court found that the defendant was the legal and beneficial owner of the property. Further, a deed of trust he entered was a sham to support the pretence that the property could not be sold to satisfy any of the defendant's debts. 

Environment – Protection. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed appeals by a wealthy businessman against his conviction for offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and against his sentence, namely a fine of £450,000 plus costs. The court held, among other things, that as the defendant had maintained his plea of guilty in the circumstances that he had, he had accepted in clear and unequivocal terms that he had caused the operations that resulted the damage. 

Company – Administrator. A company in administration applied, under r 2.109 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, to challenge the remuneration and/or expenses of the appointed administrators on the ground that they were excessive. The issue was whether that application, in addition to challenging remuneration detailed in a first report, could also challenge remuneration and/or expenses detailed in a second progress report, or whether a second application and an extension of time to make it were required. The Companies Court held that, on the true construction of the Rules, the eight week period within which to challenge remuneration and expenditure applied to the specific report which detailed the remuneration and expenses challenged. Accordingly, the company could not rely upon the first report to challenge the remuneration and expenses detailed in the second report. A second application was required and the court granted an extension of time in which to make it.