Latest Cases

Company – Articles of association. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimants' appeal, preferring the claimants' interpretation of the voting provisions contained in the articles of association of a management company of a residential development. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(7)(a) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment). The request had been made in proceedings between the Municipality of 's‑Hertogenbosch, Netherlands (the Gemeente); and the Netherlands State Secretary for Finance concerning the Gemeente's right to deduct input VAT which it had paid in respect of the construction costs of a new municipal building. 

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. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £4,000 in general damages. He suffered from severe pain in the arms, severe pain and numbness in the hands, severe pain and stiffness in the neck, severe pain in the upper back and severe pain in the shoulders. The claimant's neck injury was expected to recover 11–13 months post-accident. His soft tissue injuries to upper back and shoulders, radiating down arms to hands and travel anxiety were expected to recover within 9–11 months post-accident. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Chancery Division declined to grant an application to strike out a claim in proceedings concerning the estate of the deceased Kuwaiti Sheikh in circumstances where the claim had been purportedly brought in the third claimant's personal capacity on behalf of the estate or as the representative of the other beneficiaries of the estate, but was later amended to state that the third claimant was suing on her own behalf and as administratrix. 

Lending and security – Enforcement. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal in an action in which the sheriff concluded that it was reasonable to grant the pursuer's application for declarator that the defenders were in default of standard securities and warrant to enter into possession of the security subjects, the court held that the sheriff's decision was one which he was entitled to make in the exercise of his discretion in light of all the information before him. 

Cohabitants – Financial provision – Time-bar. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal against a sheriff's decision in a case in which the pursuer claimed payment of a capital sum from the defender following termination of their cohabitation, the court held that the sheriff had not erred in repelling the defender's preliminary plea that the pursuer's claim was time barred. 

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. 

European Union – Insurance. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling that art 3(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 72/166 had to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'use of vehicles' in that article covered any use of a vehicle that was consistent with the normal function of that vehicle. That concept might, therefore, cover the manoeuvre of a tractor in the courtyard of a farm in order to bring the trailer attached to that tractor into a barn, as in the case in the main proceedings, which was a matter for the referring court to determine. 

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.