Latest Cases

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned linked cases in the British Virgin Islands and Georgia. The defendant, C, appealed against an order of the master dismissing his application for a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. He submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction under art 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The Chancery Division held that art 22 of the Regulation did not apply, and that a stay of proceedings would not be granted. 

Rates – Rateable occupation. The district judge upheld the respondent local authority's unoccupied non-domestic rate demand against the appellant company and rejected the appellant's argument that the properties were exempt on the ground that non-occupation was the result of dilapidations and the state of the properties was such that occupation was prohibited by law. The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that health and safety legislation did not prohibit occupation and the risk of breach of the legislation if the premises had been, without more, occupied did not suffice to exempt the appellant. 

Telecommunications – Mobile telephone networks. Ofcom had decided that the claimant, BT, should not be allowed to introduce a new charging scheme because it had not been demonstrated that BT's new schedule of charges would produce consumer benefits. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) overturned that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, restored Ofcom's decision. The Supreme Court, in allowing BT's appeal, held that there had been no justification for the Court of Appeal to set aside the careful analysis of the tribunal. Contractually, BT was entitled to set its own charges, but only within limits which were fixed by the objectives of art 8 of Directive (EC) 2002/21 (on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services). 

Income tax – Company. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by Bupa Insurance Ltd (BIL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bupa Finance plc (BF), against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners rejecting BIL's claim for consortium relief pursuant to ss 402(3) and 406(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The tribunal decided that BF was 'beneficially entitled' to any distribution of profits available to equity holders so as to determine the 'relevant fraction' that should apply to limit the amount of loses of the surrendering company that could be set against the total profits of BIL. 

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Mr Babak Zanjani for annulment of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as it had listed his name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413. The General Court decided, inter alia, that the European Council had produced no evidence from which it could be established that he had carried out the alleged acts. 

Arbitration – Jurisdiction. The claimant agreed to purchase iron ore from the defendant, pursuant to a contract, which contained, as a condition precedent, pre-arbitration conciliation steps, the first being time-limited friendly discussion between the parties. A dispute arose under the contract, which the defendant referred to arbitration. The claimant applied, pursuant to s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for an order that the tribunal had lacked jurisdiction. The Commercial Court, dismissing the application, held that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim because the condition precedent to arbitration had been satisfied. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employee had brought proceedings for unfair dismissal and age discrimination before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) in the United Kingdom against his employer, the Embassy of Brazil. In dismissing the employer's appeal against the tribunal's decision concerning the validity of service at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brazil pursuant to s 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that on a proper construction of s 12 of the Act, service of the claim form by the method of transmitting it via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brazil had been effective for the purposes of the law of England and Wales. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant employees under a pension scheme appealed against the pensions ombudsman's determination of a dispute regarding the interpretation of the relevant consolidated version of the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order 1992, SI 1992/129, (the order). The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that, on the true interpretation of the relevant clause in the order, the words 'his pensionable pay for the year ending with the relevant date' meant pensionable pay referable to, relating to, or in respect of, his employment or work done in the year in question. Accordingly, when calculating pensionable pay for the year ending with the relevant date, that pay did not include arrears of pay for work done in earlier years, but which were paid in the year ending with the relevant date. 

Contract – Termination. The claimant (Bluewater) and the defendants (Mercon) contracted for the fabrication of a tower based soft yoke mooring system for installation as part of the development of an offshore oilfield. Bluewater raised multiple claims arising on the final account as well as issues relating to termination and extensions of time. The Technology and Construction Court held that Bluewater had been entitled to terminate and had validly terminated the contract, and that Mercon had not established that it had been entitled to an extension of time by way of an adjustment to the schedule of key dates. Accordingly, the balance due to Bluewater was €961,324.66. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employment tribunal dismissed a black doctor's race discrimination claim on the basis that a policy concerning contingency plans at a hospital during a period a possible swine flu pandemic had been sound and had nothing to do with the employee's race, ethnicity or nationality. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the doctor's appeal in part on the basis that the tribunal had erred in excluding evidence without going through the requisite process of evaluating the reliance of that evidence.