Latest Cases

Costs – Order for costs. Following a substantive hearing in which the claimant, although abandoning a large number of claims pre-trial, had been largely successful at trial, the court ordered that: (i) the claimant was to pay 80% of the defendant's costs on a standard basis up to and including a pre-trial review; (ii) the defendant was to pay 20% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis up to and including the pre-trial review; and (iii) the defendant was to pay 100% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis after the pre-trial review up to and including the trial. 

Water and watercourses – Reservoir. The claimant charity sought judicial review of the defendant's decision to approve and proceed with proposals for reservoir safety works to the ponds on Hampstead Heath, subject to obtaining planning permission. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no basis for requiring safety to be balanced against competing factors such as preservation of the landscape, protection of the environment or heritage assets. Further, the defendant had not adopted an irrational approach to risk on the proper construction of the purpose of the Reservoirs Act 1975. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Energeticky a průmyslovy holding a.s. (EPH) and another company for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1999 final relating to a proceeding under art 23(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 (on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in arts 81 and 82 EC). 

European Union – Trade marks. Following the main judgment in the proceedings, in which orders were made against a number of websites that had been selling fake goods, the Chancery Division made similar orders against two further websites. 

Mortgage – Action by mortgagee for possession. The Chancery Division, in a claim by the assignee of a mortgage for possession of a property and a money judgment against the defendant, rejected both the defendant's defence and counterclaim and held that the claimant had proved its claim. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant had applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant, supported by a letter setting out a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS), issued by a college. However, before the date of the Secretary of State's decision on the application, the college withdrew the CAS as a result of an administrative error. The appellant's application was refused. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the general public law duty to act fairly had not imposed an obligation on the Secretary of State, when she had seen that the CAS letter on which the appellant's application for leave to remain was based had been withdrawn, to adjourn any decision on the application to give the appellant notice of the problem and an opportunity to rectify it. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division entered summary judgment for the defendant hospital in respect of data protection brought by the claimant. It also struck out a defamation claim and gave the defendant its costs in relation to certain abandoned claims of the claimant. 

European Union – Public service contract. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Alfastar Benelux SA (Alfastar) for annulment of the decision of the European Council not to select the tender submitted by Alfastar response to the restricted call for tenders UCA 218/07, for the provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer. 

Company – Winding up. In the course of winding up proceedings concerning two land banking companies, an order was made that advertisement of the winding up petitions made against the companies should be restrained. In the present hearing, the Chancery Division considered whether that order should be continued. The court held that the interest of the customers who had purchased land from the companies should prevail, and that the companies' application to continue the order would be dismissed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Poland to face trial for obtaining a bank loan by deception. He relied on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the impact of extradition on his partner and child. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life and the welfare of his child.