Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction with art 4(3) of the Treaty on the European Union, had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, pursuant to which the price of haulage services for hire and reward might not be lower than minimum operating costs, which were fixed by a body composed mainly of representatives of the economic operators concerned. 

European Union – Commercial policy. In the context of defamation proceedings issued by the applicant against the respondents, the Court of Justice of the European Union answered five questions on the interpretation of European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2000/31. In particular, it held that 'information society services', within the meaning of art 2(a) of the Directive, covered the provision of online information services for which the service provider was remunerated, not by the recipient, but by income generated by advertisements posted on a website and that the Directive did not preclude the application of rules of civil liability for defamation. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 3, 16 and 27 to 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings). The request had been made in proceedings between Burgo Group SpA and, on the other, Illochroma SA (Illochroma), in liquidation, and Maître Theetten, acting in his capacity as liquidator of Illochroma, concerning the opening, in Belgium, of secondary insolvency proceedings relating to the assets of Illochroma. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £4,300 in general damages. She suffered from severe pain in her neck, right shoulder and upper, mid and lower back. She also suffered from severe headaches and travel anxiety. The claimant's back injury was expected to recover in 11–13 months post-accident. The claimant's whiplash soft tissue injury to neck and right shoulder, headaches and travel anxiety were expected to recover in 9–11 months post-accident. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that the employee's dismissal for making a protected disclosure had been unfair and it made a basic award and a compensatory award. The employer successfully appealed. On remission, the tribunal considered the employee's conduct and decided that no compensatory award would be made. It held that there should be a 10% reduction in the basic award in respect of the employee's conduct. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's decision to make no compensatory award could not stand. The appropriate reduction was 40%. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA (Herdade) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP and Herdade, concerning the application by Herdade to register a figurative sign depicting, amongst other things, a polo player. 

Family proceedings – Ancillary relief. A husband and wife had lived together in a farmhouse held by the husband's parents. A trust was later executed over the farmhouse, with the husband as the principal beneficiary. Both the husband and wife had contributed joint money to the farmhouse. The wife claimed for ancillary relief following divorce. The family court held, inter alia, that the trust would be varied to create a wife's fund, of which £23,000 would be outright and £134,000 would be on the life tenancy in respect of the farmhouse. 

Criminal law – Indictment. The defendants worked for a company which was a major manufacturer of an anti-knock fuel additive for use in motor gasoline. They had initially been charged with conspiracy to corrupt for allegedly bribing public officials and other agents of the Government of Indonesia. They sought leave to appeal against their conviction on a second count of conspiracy to corrupt, which had been added after the close of the prosecution case. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, refusing leave, held that no injustice had resulted from the addition of count 2. The court reduced the sentence from four years' imprisonment to three years' imprisonment in respect of one of the defendants where the judge had used the wrong starting point. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The claimants issued proceedings against the defendant for unpaid commission and damages arising out of an agency agreement. The Queen's Bench Division, made factual findings on disputed issues of fact before determining the relationship between the parties. It then found that the parties' agreement had not been repudiated by the claimants' representative, but that the defendant had breached the agreement. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division considered the factors material to whether an employment tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an unfair dismissal claim brought by a former employee who was engaged to work abroad. In allowing the employer's appeal, the court held that the authorities made it clear that the general rule was that someone in the employee's position was, upon dismissal, excluded from any right to claim under s 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. If he wished to show that, exceptionally, his case was not caught by that general rule, but that he was within the territorial jurisdiction of s 94(1), he had to be able to show that his employment relationship had a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law such that it could be presumed that Parliament had to have intended that s 94(1) should apply to him.