Latest Cases

Claim form – Service. The Commercial Court considered preliminary issues which arose in a claim for breach of a contract for the sale of the European sugar business of Tate & Lyle plc. The court held, among other things that the phrase 'issued and served' in the contract meant issued and served in accordance with the CPR and that actual service had been effected by CPR 7.5 within the 12 month time limit provided by the contract. 

Contempt of court – Committal. In the course of proceedings, the second defendant company made a committal application against SA, a director of the first and second claimant companies, and sought declarations that the claimants were in contempt of court. The Commercial Court considered the applications, and held that, among other things, it would be appropriate for the committal application to be heard well before the main trial, and for the judge to recuse himself from the committal application. 

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. 

Employment law – Equal pay. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by employers in an equal pay claim by employees who had been transferred to arm's length external organisations ('ALEOs') by Glasgow City Council, the court held that an employment tribunal (ET) had erred and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, reversing the ET, was correct to hold that the City Council and ALEOs were associated employers and the employees could therefore compare their pay with that of men still working for the City Council. 

Criminal law – Appeal. In an unsuccessful appeal against conviction and sentence where the defendant received a nine year sentence for one count of rape, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided guidance on the proper approach on deciding whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of a complainant relating to a 'relevant issue in the case' within the meaning of s 41(2) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. In the instant case it was held that the trial judge's ruling not to adduce certain evidence had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial and the nine year sentence he received was not manifestly excessive. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The defendant Secretary of State announced to Parliament on 6 June 2013, that the level of support provided in cash to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers for the financial year 2013/2014 should remain frozen at the rates which had applied since 2011. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had erroneously failed to take into account in reaching her decision various categories of essential living needs which fell to be taken into account in setting the level of cash provided pursuant to s 96(1)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, among other things, that art 7(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 75/442 (on waste), as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a national legislative provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provided that, in derogation from the rule that no landfills might be authorised except on the sites provided for in the waste management plan required by that article, landfills authorised before that waste management plan entered into force might, after such entry into force, be granted new permits in respect of the plots covered by the authorisation, did not constitute a 'waste management plan' within the meaning of that provision of Directive 2001/42, as amended. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The appellant company (Morgan) was the whistle-blower in a cartel. The European Commission held in a decision that the cartel had infringed European Community law. Several members of the cartel unsuccessfully appealed. The respondent companies (together, DB) sought to bring proceedings against Morgan for losses caused by the cartel. The issue arose as to whether DB's claims had been brought within the relevant two-year time limit, and from when that limit had started to run. The Supreme Court held that the time limit would run from the date when time had expired for an appeal by Morgan to the General Court, and hence the claim by DB had been brought out of time. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division refused a defendant barrister's application for leave to appeal against his conviction of cheating the public revenue in circumstances where the defendant challenged the prosecution's late submission of documentary evidence at trial and contended that the judge's summing up was unbalanced, unfair and defective. Although there was no criticism in the submission of the documentary evidence, there was criticism in the manner of the judge's summing up. Nevertheless, the summing up was not significantly inaccurate and was not in any way unfair as to render the conviction unsafe. 

Building contract – Construction. The parties entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) to develop property. The property was not developed in time, and the claimant sought to extend the JVA for three months to allow the development to go ahead. The defendant did not agree to the extension, and the property was sold outside the JVA. A dispute arose as to whether the claimant was entitled to a share in the proceeds of the property. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the evidence of M, who controlled the defendant, was to be preferred and the claimant's claim would fail.