Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union annulled part of judgment of the General Court of the European Union, in which it had rejected actions by Areva SA and the Alstom group companies regarding a decision by the European Commission finding the existence of a cartel in gas insulted switchgear and imposing fines calculated on a joint and several liability basis. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant sought the discharge of a freezing injunction made against the background of proceedings alleging fraudulent and dishonest breaches of his duty. He contended that there was no real risk that he would dissipate his assets and that the claimant had failed to make full disclosure when applying for the freezing order without notice. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there was an inference of a risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets and that the omissions in disclosure were not sufficiently serious to lead to the discharge of the freezing order. 

Practice – Order. The defendant was found guilty of offences relating to dealing improperly in firearms and imprisoned. Among other things, an order was made by the court for the forfeiture of guns owned by a company controlled by the defendant. The defendant appealed against the order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the order would be quashed. The forfeiture order had been made against the defendant and not the company. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The district judge ordered that the appellant Latvian nationals should be extradited to Latvia pursuant to European arrest warrants. The appellants appealed on the basis that there was a real risk that their rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached if they were detained in prison in Latvia. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that a general attack on Latvian prison conditions could not possibly succeed. Further, none of the appellants had been able to present special circumstances which had given rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to art 3 of the Convention. 

Civil procedure – Interim interdict – Adjudication. Court of Session: Declining to grant a sub-contractor's motion for interim interdict, seeking to prevent a sub-sub-contractor under a construction contract from initiating any further adjudication, the court held that as a party should not be prevented from referring a dispute to adjudication save in the most exceptional circumstances and it had to be shown that conduct was both unreasonable and oppressive, the pursuer had failed to establish a prima facie case to grant interim interdict, and the balance of convenience also tipped in the defender's favour. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant alleged that she had been sexually assaulted whilst in immigration detention and made various claims against the immigration removal centre, Serco. In the claim against the Home Office there was a report of the event in the immigration centre. The legal department of the Guardian newspaper wrote to Serco seeking the investigation report. When Serco refused to disclose the report, the Guardian applied under CPR 31.22(1) for a declaration that the claimant might lawfully supply the Guardian with the report. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was in the public interest that the Guardian should be allowed access to the report and should be free to publish its contents. 

Tort – Cause of action. The defendant newspaper published photographs of the children of well-known musician, Paul Weller, taken in California. The children sought damages and an injunction for misuse of private information and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Queen's Bench Division held that it could assess what the defendant had known and what it ought to have known in determining the children's reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the lawfulness of taking and publishing the photographs in California would be taken into account when assessing the legal tests, but was not determinative. Having found the claims established, it awarded the children damages totalling £10,000. 

Immigration – Appeal. The claimant Russian national issued judicial review proceedings contending that, on the proper interpretation of s 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, he could leave the United Kingdom to return to Chechnya without abandoning his appeal against the cancellation of his indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in the circumstances, the claimant positively withdrawn or abandoned his appeal. Accordingly, the judicial review application was academic and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing an academic claim. 

Race relations – Discrimination. The employee, a deputy head teacher at the employer primary school, had had a poor working relationship with the headteacher. The employee had accidentally sent an email to 20 members of staff setting out her grievances and referring to the headteacher as a racist. In dismissing the employee's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal's judgment was to be read in its entirety: its conclusions had been sufficiently reasoned. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that the employee, who previously had a poor attendance record, had been dismissed unfairly by reason of her pregnancy. It made an award in respect of a basic award and a compensatory award. The employer appealed against the failure by the tribunal to make any deduction by way of contributory conduct. Allowing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred in law in failing to consider whether or not there had been a chance, on the evidence, that the employee would have been dismissed, fairly, in any event.