Latest Cases

Carriage by air – Carriage of passengers. Following the claimant's successful claim for compensation for a delayed flight under Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights), the airline appealed contending that the claim had been outside the two year limitation period allowed by the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that such a claim was outside the Convention and, accordingly, the two year limitation did not apply. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Supreme Court, allowing two appeals against confiscation orders in part, held that, whilst the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, had been right to hold that the benefit to be valued in respect of each of the defendants was the whole amount of the property obtained, the confiscation orders had to be amended to provide that they were not to be enforced to the extent that a sum had been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit. 

Human rights – Infringement of human rights. The applicant's wife had been in critical condition in hospital. A 'do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' notice had been put on her patient record to the effect that cardio-pulmonary resuscitation was not to be performed if required. Neither the patient nor her family had agreed to such a notice. When the family objected, the notice was removed from the notes. The family sought judicial review of the decision to place the notice on her file, contending that to have done so without adequate consultation with the patient and her family and without notifying any of them had been a breach of the patient's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the NHS Trust had violated the patient's rights under art 8 by having failed to involve her in the process which had led to the first notice. In general, there was a presumption in favour of patient involvement in the decision, although there were certain limited circumstances where such involvement might not be required. 

European Union – Community foreign and security policy. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Abolnaser Hemmati (AH) for annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as it had included AH's name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 1245/2011 (implementing Regulation (EU) 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran) in so far as it had included AH's name in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 (on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) 423/2007). 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by European Dynamics Luxembourg (EDL) SA against the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to reject EDL's tender application for the provision of information technology infrastructure and application services, in accordance with art 13 of Decision ECB/2007/5 of the ECB (laying down the rules of procurement). 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The first defendant Welsh Ministers granted planning permission for the extension of a dairy unit on the ground that the economic benefits outweighed the social and environmental objections. The claimant international animal welfare organisation applied to quash the grant of planning permission, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no merit in any of the claimant's challenges. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Communicaid Group Ltd (CGL), established in London, for the annulment, in whole or in part, of the decisions by which the European Commission had refused to rank CGL in first place for Lots 1, 2, 4 and 7 to 9 of the Call for Tenders HR/R3/PR/2012/002 relating to framework agreements for the provision of language training for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels (Belgium). 

Contract – Mutuality – Breach of contract. Court of Session: In an action in which solicitors sued for professional fees for acting on the defender's behalf in a professional negligence action, and in which the defender contended that no fees were due as the pursuers were in material breach of contract, the court held that the pursuers were not, at the time when the defender withdrew its instructions, in material breach of their contractual duties, and it followed that they were entitled to payment for their contractual services to the defender and that the defender's counterclaim for damages for breach of contract must be rejected. 

Town and country planning – Development. The claimant had been refused planning permission to explore and test for hydrocarbons in the green belt. The Secretary of State's inspector refused the appeal as the proposed development did not fall within the category of 'mineral extraction' in para 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework. On appeal, the judge found that exploration did fall within the meaning of mineral extraction and quashed the inspector's decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's decision for the reasons he had given. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Press Association came before the court to challenging the order to remove the embargo on naming a patient who had died. The Court of protection held that where a court had restricted the publication of information during proceedings that were in existence during a person's lifetime, it had not only the right but the duty to consider, when requested to do so, whether that information should continue to be protected following the person's death, and to balance the factors that arose in the particular case. All things considered, the balance in the case fell in favour of discharging that part of the order that conferred anonymity on the part of the patient.