Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission found that the applicant's new rules for its interoperable banking systems had infringed art 81 of the EC Treaty. The General Court of the European Union dismissed its action for the annulment of the decision and the applicant appealed. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in allowing the appeal, held that, in holding that the measures at issue had had as their object a restriction of competition within the meaning of art 81(1) of the EC Treaty, the General Court had erred in law and had failed to observe the standard of review required under the case law. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the obligation laid down in art 45 of Council Directive (EEC) 85/611, under which an undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities which marketed its units within the territory of a member state other than that in which it was situated was required to make payments to unit holders in the member state of marketing, had to be interpreted as not including the delivery to unit holders of certificates providing evidence of title to units which were registered in their name in the register of unit holders kept by the issuer. 

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 – Regulations. The first applicant Zimbabwean Deputy Minister for Economic Planning and Development and his companies sought compensation resulting from being the subject of restrictive measures imposed by the European Council. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the application, held that there was sufficient statement of the reasons justifying the freezing of the first applicant's assets. Further, there had been no manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers in listing the first applicant as a person subject to restrictive measures or in omitting to revoke the measure against him sooner. 

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. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar – Twelve-month rule. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by five appellants against the sheriff at Paisley's decision, at end of the April 2014 sitting, to grant a motion to adjourn their trial on charges of serious assault and to extend the 12-month time bar, the court held that the developing issues surrounding the fitness of one of the appellants to stand trial constituted sufficient cause to satisfy the first stage test in HM Advocate v Swift, and that the sheriff did not err in exercising his discretion by granting the motion. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employment tribunal, having found that the employer was liable for sex discrimination and harassment of the employee, ordered that it pay the employee an award for injury to feelings, which would be subject to a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievance at Work 2009. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the award was manifestly too high and that there was no basis for the uplift. Accordingly, the award would be substituted for a smaller amount and the judgment on the uplift would be quashed. 

Bank – Bank loan. The appellants were found liable for two loans, which had been secured against property. The Privy Council, in dismissing their appeal, held that there was no basis for criticising the judgment of the relevant Court of Appeal. 

Practice – Family proceedings. During a fact-finding hearing concerning the death of a child, a schedule of failings, in which the investigation into the child's death was analysed, was produced. The judgement was not made public and a reporting restriction order was made. The media applied for disclosure of the fact-finding judgment and the schedule of failings to their legal advisors. The Family Division held that the balance fell in favour of disclosure of the fact-finding judgment, but not the schedule of failings, to identified legal advisers to the media for an identified purpose and subject to strict controls. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, determined an account of profits following a judgment in which it was found that the claimants' patent was valid and had been infringed by the defendants.