Latest Cases

Competition – Merger. The defendant Competition Commission proposed to make an enforcement order to prohibit the claimant Dutch company's proposed indirect acquisition of 51% of the shares in the intervener Italian company. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the claimant's application for review and it appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that conducting strategic and operational management of a business carried on in the United Kingdom clearly amounted to carrying it on, under s 86(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002. 

Contract – Commission. The case concerned a claim by the claimant, a firm of yacht brokers, for commission on the sale of a yacht belonging the defendants. The claimant alleged that, pursuant to the first defendant's instructions, it had shown the yacht to M, the owner of a company, which had later bought it. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had not been instructed to market the yacht at the relevant time and, even if it had been, it had not been an effective cause of the eventual sale of the yacht to M's company. 

Company – Insolvency. A company had difficulty paying its debts. A petition for its winding up was presented. The sole director of the company applied, pursuant to para 12(1)(b) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, for an order for the appointment of two directors as joint administrators of the company. The Chancery Division held that, whilst on paper the criteria for making an administration order, as set out at para 11 of Sch B1 to the Act, had been made out, on the evidence, various matters required explanation. Where other alternatives required consideration, the court was not persuaded that it should make an administration order. 

European Union – Consumer Protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (on nutrition and health claims made on foods), as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that the obligations to provide information laid down in art 10(2) of that regulation were already in force in 2010 as regards health claims that were not prohibited on the basis of art 10(1), read in conjunction with art 28(5) and (6) of that regulation. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The appeal raised the question as to whether certain sales of land or arrangements relating to sales of land at six sites in England were 'collective investment schemes' within the meaning of s 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The judge declared that the first and third defendants had established and operated collective investment schemes and they appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, rejected their submissions that the judge had wrongly accepted the claimant's submissions and had erroneously given s 235 of the Act the very wide meaning that the Financial Conduct Authority had urged upon him. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council's Conduct and Competence Committee (the panel) found that the appellant nurse's fitness to practice had been impaired by reason of misconduct and imposed a caution order for a period of 30 months. The appellant appealed. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that the panel had applied the proper test in relation to impairment, had not been wrong or failed to provide sufficient reasons in relation to its findings on impairment and had not imposed an excessive or disproportionate sanction in the circumstances. 

Pension – Pension scheme. By a deed of adherence, the second claimant company became a participating employer in a group pension scheme. The judge held that the deed did not confer scale benefits on the employees which differed from those under the existing scheme and the claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the deed had done more than merely extend the scheme to the employees. Further, nothing had obviously gone wrong with the language of the deed. 

Broadcasting – Television. The claimant broadcaster seriously breached the broadcasting code. A hearing too place before a panel of the defendant television regulator, Ofcom. The panel decided to impose sanctions amounting to 25% of the claimant's annual turnover. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that there had been nothing in the instant case to suggest either actual or apparent bias in the decision making process. Further, Ofcom's decision as to the level of the penalties had not been irrational and disproportionate in the light of the claimant's financial position. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Ecuadorian national applied for leave to remain. In March 2011, the defendant Secretary of State rejected that application without reference to the claimant's children. The claimant applied for judicial review and in July, the Secretary of State agreed by consent to review the March 2011 decision. In the same month, the Secretary of State's policy changed with the effect that those in the claimant's position would receive discretionary leave to remain (DLR). In November, the Secretary of State granted the claimant three years' DLR. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to grant him DLR rather than indefinite leave to remain (ILR). That claim was brought late due to the claimant's financial position. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court accepted the claimant's submission that his case had fallen within the types of scenarios in which the Secretary of State had contemplated that the granting of ILR after the policy change in July 2011 would have been appropriate. Further,whilst the delay in bringing the claim had been undue delay, it had not been particularly reprehensible and in the circumstances of the case and declarative relief would be granted. 

Immigration – Appeal. The appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) to consider appeals against decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to make or not to make a fee award. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had been right to conclude that it had had no jurisdiction for the reasons it had given. Further, it reconstituted itself as the Divisional Court, but refused the claimant permission to apply for judicial review.