Latest Cases

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, inter alia, that arts 41(1), 43 and 45 of Directive 2004/18 had to be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions for the application of the grounds for exclusion set out in art 45 of that directive were not fulfilled, that article did not preclude the adoption by a contracting authority of a decision not to award a contract for which a procurement procedure had been held and not to proceed with the definitive award of the contract to the sole tenderer remaining in contention to whom the contract had been provisionally awarded. 

Arbitration – Award. Disputes arose between the owners and charterers of a vessel that was hijacked by pirates. The claimant sub-charter of the vessel applied, under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, to set aside an award of an arbitral tribunal on the grounds that the tribunal had lacked jurisdiction to make it. The Commercial Court, dismissing the application, held that the tribunal had had jurisdiction to make the award and had correctly found that an inconsistency between a clause in the charterparty and of the 'BIMCO' arbitration clauses should be resolved in favour of the BIMCO arbitration clauses. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 18(1)(d) and 22 of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 had to be interpreted as containing formal (not substantive) requirements relating to the right to deduct, failure to comply with which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, could not result in the loss of that right. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by The Coca Cola Company (Coca-Cola) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between Coca-Cola and Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) regarding the application by Mitico for registration of a figurative sign in elegant script depicting the word: 'Master'. 

Human rights – Right to fair trial. The applicants complained that the admission of witness statements of absent victims in domestic proceedings leading to their convictions violated their right to cross-examine witnesses who gave the sole or decisive evidence against them. The European Court of Human Rights rejected their argument that the decisive evidence had to be reliable or, at the very least, shown not to be unreliable to any significant extent before it could be fairly admitted. It then held that there had been no violation of art 6(1) or 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the applicants. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, upholding an enforcement notice, requiring him to remove three pontoons. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on the facts, the general proposition that a permission was either implemented or not and that a single permission could not be implemented in part had no relevance. Further, the inspector had made no error of law in his conclusion that the arrangement immediately previous to that existing at the relevant time had been unlawful. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned the breakdown of relations around the ownership of a joint venture company, Spartan, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). The claimant was given permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on Spartan and the first and second defendant companies, Kea and Harlaw. Kea and Harlaw challenged the grant of permission. The Chancery Division held that permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction would be set aside. 

Health authority – Negligence. The claimant dentist brought a claim against the defendant in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty, alleging that the defendant had unlawfully removed his name from the Hackney dental performers list and that he had suffered financial losses as a result. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that no duty of care had been owed to the claimant, either under the statute or at common law to protect him from economic loss and, if that was wrong, there had been no breach. 

Practice – Appeal. Three cases were heard together to enable the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to give guidance on the approach that should be taken to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that the principles to be derived from Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2014] 2 All ER 430) and Denton and others v TH White Ltd and another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others ([2014] All ER (D) 53 (Jul)) applied to applications for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Consideration was given to public law cases, and cases involving a shortage of funds and litigants in person. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 49 and 56 TFEU had to be interpreted as meaning that they did not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provided that the provision of urgent and emergency ambulance services had to be entrusted on a preferential basis and awarded directly, without any advertising, to the voluntary associations covered by the agreements, in so far as the legal and contractual framework in which the activity of those associations was carried out actually contributed to the social purpose and the pursuit of the objectives of the good of the community and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation was based (see [65] of the judgment).