Latest Cases

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation). The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between certain federal civil servants and Germany, concerning the methods of allocating to those civil servants a step or a transitional step within grades of the pay scheme applicable in each case. 

Practice – Extension of time. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant bank, contending that the bank had made unauthorised transferrals of its money. The claimant was given permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction. The defendant did not challenge the service at the time, but later sought permission from the English court for an extension of time to apply to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. The Chancery Division held that no good reason had been shown for the failure to apply in time for an extension of time, and dismissed the application. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant (BPL) a limited liability partnership and a successor practice of Beecham Peacock Solicitors (BPS) claimed legitimately incurred disbursements incurred on behalf of its clients from the defendant insurance companies. The defendants defence was that as BPS was not a party to the insurance policies it had no right of action against the insurers. Second it was contended that in breach of reg 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 BPS had failed to disclose its interest in recommending the contract of insurance. The defendants applied to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench dismissed the application. 

False imprisonment – Damages. The police had been called to an incident in which the appellant had been implicated. The officer had blocked the appellant in a doorway and told him to calm down otherwise he would be arrested. The appellant pushed the officer and a fight broke out. The appellant's claim for damages for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal in respect of the claim for false imprisonment. There had been a brief 'technical' imprisonment arising from the appellant's unlawful detention in the doorway for which he would be awarded £5. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed against the Fitness to Practise Panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service's (the panel) finding that the registrant psychiatrist's online psychiatric blog was not a 'medical practice' and that his conduct had not amounted to misconduct. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a finding of misconduct was warranted. In particular, the panel had erred in asking itself too limited a question as to whether the blog had been a medical practice. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products). The request had been made in proceedings between Bayer CropScience AG (Bayer) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office concerning the validity of a decision by which that office had refused to grant a supplementary protection certificate to Bayer in respect of a safener, Isoxadifen, and the salts and esters thereof. 

Practice – Interest. A judgment was given for the claimant company in the Russian court, but later set aside. However, the principal sums came to be paid, because the claimant identified assets of the defendant company within the Dutch jurisdiction. The awards did not mention interest. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, there was no ex nihilo nil fit principle which precluded the enforcement of the awards. The interest on the awards would not be enforceable in the Russian courts, but was in England. However, whether it ought to be awarded as a matter of discretion was for later determination. 

Patent – Infringement. The first defendant owned a patent concerning an induction heating unit for hair rollers. Letters had been sent on behalf of the first and fourth defendants to the claimant and other companies, alleging infringement of the patent. In earlier proceedings, the claimant had successfully defended a claim, brought by the first defendant, for patent infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court made an inquiry into damages and held, among other things, that the first and fourth defendants and were liable for losses, in the sum of £40,500, caused by the letters. The claimant was also entitled to interest. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Mr Noble, who traded as a sole trader under the name K & B C eilings, against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) which had upheld the rejection by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners of Mr Noble's deduction of input tax in his VAT tax returns. The tribunal decided that the invoices to which the input tax were said to relate had not been valid invoices as the services shown on those invoices had not been supplied to Mr Noble as alleged.