Latest Cases

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 5(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2008/7 (concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital) should be interpreted as precluding the taxation of the conversion of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities such as that at issue in the main proceedings. Such a tax could not be justified under art 6 of that directive. 

European Union – Competition. The General Court of the European Union annulled arts 1(d) and 2(d) of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final relating to a proceeding pursuant to art 81 EC Treaty and 53 of the European Economic Area agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 863 final, in so far as Soliver NV had thereby been found to have participated, from 19 November 2001 to 11 March 2003, in an unlawful cartel on the carglass market in the EEA and a fine of €4,96,000 had been imposed on it on that basis. 

Evidence – Without prejudice correspondence. In the course of proceedings, the claimant company sought to have certain correspondence admitted in evidence, even though it was largely marked 'without prejudice'. The Chancery Division held that the relevant communications were not covered by the without prejudice privilege and were admissible as evidence. 

Natural justice – Judge. Following proceedings that alleged two massive frauds, the judge made numerous adverse findings regarding Mr Urumov and found him personally liable in the sum of US$174m. The claimant companies then sought to issue proceedings against Mr Urumov for contempt and committal to prison. On Mr Urumov's application, the same judge recused himself. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred as the established tests for recusal had not been met. 

European Union – Family proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility), repealing Regulation (EC) 1347/2000. The request had been made in the context of legal proceedings brought by C against M concerning the return to France of their child who was in Ireland with M. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant, Tesco, sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of a shop and the construction of a retail store. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had exercised its planning judgment in ways that had been entirely matters for it. Further, its decision had not been irrational. 

Contract – Construction. In the course of proceedings, the Commercial Court considered the proper construction of a clause in an agreement between the parties. The court, preferring the second defendant company's construction, held that the clause covered all fines, compensation or remedial action or payments imposed on or required to be made by the first defendant. 

Coroner – Inquest. The mother of Mark Duggan, who had been shot dead by a police officer, sought judicial review of the jury's finding that he had been 'lawfully killed'. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the argument that lawful killing as a conclusion was available only if the jury concluded that there had been no civil wrong was inconsistent with the statutory regime governing inquests and that the procedural obligation under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been violated. Further, the jury could not have done other than conclude that the officer had feared an imminent attack. 

Practice – Service out of jurisdiction. The claimant bank brought claimants against the first defendant, as borrower, and the second to sixth defendants, as guarantors, following default by the first defendant in the repayment of substantial sums of money advanced by the bank. The bank was granted permission for service outside the jurisdiction in respect of the eighth defendant, whose debts to the first defendant had been assigned to the bank. The eighth defendant applied for an order setting aside the claim form and a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction. The Commercial Court held that the bank had failed to show that the eight defendant was a necessary and proper defendant to the claim. Further, England was not the proper forum. The application to set aside service and the declaration sought were granted. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the second sub-paragraph of art 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of the Council (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Petru and the Health Insurance Agency, Sibiu District, and another, concerning hospital treatment provided in Germany in respect of which Ms Petru had claimed reimbursement by way of damages.