Latest Cases

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the coordination of social security systems). The request had been made in proceedings between I, an Irish national, and the Irish Health Service Executive concerning the latter's refusal to grant the applicant a further renewal of Form E 112 to cover the costs of medical treatment which he was receiving in Germany. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant company, Voiceflex, provided services to the defendant company, Frip, under a contract. In October 2011, hackers hacked into Frip's computers and many phone calls were made by persons unknown. Voiceflex sought to invoice Frip for the calls, and brought proceedings. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the evidence, Frip had not used insufficient security, and that, on the agreement between the parties, Frip had only been obliged to pay for the calls that it actually made. 

Carriage by air – International carriage. The claimant sought compensation for his flight delay, under Regulation (EC) 261/2004. The judge found that the exception in art 5(3) of the Regulation applied and awarded the claimant compensation. The defendant air carrier appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that judge had adopted a mistaken reading of European case law, as he had focused on the consequences of the technical problem instead of the source. However, the defendant's submissions as to the meaning of art 5(3) of the Regulation failed to give proper effect to the language of the exception. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In the course of a patent dispute, the defendant company (B&S) challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held, in dismissing the application that, because B&S had entered an appearance before a court of the United Kingdom within the meaning of art 24 of the Brussels Convention on the Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968, the English Court had jurisdiction. 

Contract – Breach. In the course of the purchase of a nightclub, a dispute arose as to the entitlement of the claimants, who had assisted with the purchase, to remuneration. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, most of their claims would be dismissed, although they would be entitled to restitutionary relief in relation to payments and services made in connection with the nightclub. 

Constitutional law – Heads of foreign states. The case concerned the first judgment in the United Kingdom on whether personal immunity survived a sovereign following his death. The claimant widow of the deceased former King of Saudi Arabia brought a claim in the United Kingdom against his son, the defendant prince, for breach of contract. The prince applied for a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction, relying on his late father's alleged immunity as a sovereign head of state, under the State Immunity Act 1978. The Chancery Division, dismissing the application, held that a sovereign who had died in office did not remain the embodiment of the state once deceased. Accordingly, the Prince could not rely on a defence of state immunity to defeat the claimant's claim. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant issued proceedings for injuries and losses sustained as a result of the defendant general practitioner's failure to diagnose her with bacterial meningitis. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that a reasonably competent general practitioner would have diagnosed or had a high suspicion that the claimant had been suffering bacterial meningitis and would have treated her with both penicillin and urgent referral to hospital. Accordingly, the claimant succeeded on the issues of liability in respect of both breach of duty and causation. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove her and her children to Pakistan. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to avail herself of opportunities to make further representations, the best interests of the children had been considered, there had been no manifest irrationality in the Secretary of State's reconsideration letter and there was no illegality sufficient to trigger the exercise of the court's discretion to require the Secretary of State to bring about the return of the claimant and her children. 

Commons – Registration. An application was made to register an area of land as a town or village green. The application was defective and a little over a year passed before a fully compliant application was registered with the defendant local authority. The claimant landowner objected. The High Court judge found that if the corrections were made within a reasonable period then the corrected application would take effect from the filing date and that the relevant application had been perfected within a reasonable opportunity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that reg 5(4) of the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/457, provided a means for curing deficiencies in an application which did not provide all the statutory particulars, and, once an application was so cured, it was treated as duly made on the date on which the original defective application had been lodged. Further, the question of reasonable opportunity was one for the court, not the registration authority. The appeal was allowed as a reasonable opportunity to file a non-defective application had been exceeded. 

Loan – Loan agreement. In 1997, the first defendant issuer issued a number of notes, which were floating rate commercial mortgage backed securities, as part of a financing structure relating to a total loan of £1,172m. The value of the underlying portfolio dropped and the servicing company sought to sell certain assets to improve the situation. The claimant note trustee issued a CPR Pt 8 claim to determine the best way forward. The Chancery Division held that the offering circular related to the notes could not be viewed as intended to constitute an appointment as defined in a servicing agreement. Further, the servicing agreement provided that the controlling party for the purpose of the service agreement, was to be the issuer.