Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant was a former director of the claimant company. The claimant brought a claim for, inter alia, delivery up of confidential information and an injunction. The defendant applied for summary judgment in respect of the claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant's applications for summary judgment and strike out would be dismissed, save in respect of the claim for delivery up based on an implied term in the parties' contract or the defendant's fiduciary duties. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The claimant was serving a life sentence with a tariff of eight years for sexual offences against children. He sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision not to accept the parole board's recommendation that he was suitable to be transferred to an open prison. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State, whilst giving full weight to the important recommendation of the parole board, had been entitled to depart from it. Further, his reasons for doing so had not been unreasonable or irrational. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimants, well-known high street retailers, brought a claim against Visa Inc and others, seeking damages for alleged breaches of European and domestic competition law in relation to the defendants' imposition of multilateral interchange fees ('MIFs') in the course of operating the Visa payment-card system. The defendants applied for the claims to be struck out or for summary judgment on the ground that the claims were time barred under s 2 of the Limitation Act 1980. The issue was whether, as contended by the claimants, concealed facts had disabled the claimants from pleading the cause of action which the court was considering and that accordingly, s 32 of the Act extended the limitation period. The Commercial Court, in allowing the claims, held that the claimants had not identified any such facts and that the claim was appropriate for summary disposal. 

Limitation of action – Negligence. In 2005, the claimant, on the defendant's advice, made an investment. In 2012, when the claimant surrendered the bond, she suffered a loss. In November 2012, the claimant issued a claim in negligence against the defendant and, on the preliminary issue as to limitation, the judge held that the claimant could take advantage of the provisions of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that the claimant could not take advantage of s 14A of the Act, that the entirety of her claim was time-barred and her action would be dismissed. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The applicant Hungarian national appealed out of time against orders for his extradition to Hungary to serve outstanding prison sentences for offences of fraud and violence. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it had no jurisdiction to extend time to appeal, as rights of British citizens to appeal out of time in exceptional circumstances could not be extended to EU nationals. That position was not discriminatory and did not impinge on a non-British citizen's ability to argue a point under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3(5) of, and points (b) and (c) of Annex A to, Directive (EC) 2003/54 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity), and art 3(3) of, and points (b) and (c) of Annex A to, Directive (EC) 2003/55 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas). The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings, respectively between Ms Schulz and Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG (TWS) and between Mr Egbringhoff and Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH (SA) concerning the use, by TWS and SA respectively, of allegedly unlawful clauses in consumer contracts covered by a universal supply obligation. 

European Union – Commission. In the course of proceedings concerning the defendant airline's alleged involvement with a cartel, the European Commission made a decision. There was dispute as to whether a redacted version of the decision could be made available to the parties. The Chancery Division held that it would be appropriate to create a confidentiality ring between the parties, among whose members the decision could be shared, with the added safeguard that the claimants would be barred from using the decision to commence any further proceedings. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employee had commenced proceedings against the employer, alleging disability discrimination. She sought to add claims of discrimination related to pregnancy and maternity and sex discrimination. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) refused permission to amend. The employee appealed. The Employee Appeal Tribunal, allowing the appeal, held that the tribunal had failed to apply settled principles. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The employment tribunal found that, when the appellant was providing her services through a limited company for the purpose of selling Shiseido cosmetic products in a duty free outlet managed by the respondent, she was not an employee of the respondent for the purposes of s 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the existence of an employment relationship did not turn on whether the parties had entered into a formal contract, which would be recognised in domestic law as having constituted employment, but on whether it met the criteria which had been laid down by European law. Applying those criteria, the appellant was not an employee of the respondent. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's policy for calculating the amount of financial assistance to be provided, under s 17 of the Children Act 1989, by reference to the amount that the Secretary of State would provide to a failed asylum seeker and his dependants. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the policy had been lawful. Further, although the authority had failed to appreciate the claimants' derivative rights of residence, as the primary carers of a British national child, that had not invalidated the authority's policy or the individual decisions in the claimants' cases.