Latest Cases

Shipping – Bill of lading. In the course of proceedings between the parties for payment relating to damage to the claimant's cargo on board the defendant owners' vessel, an issue arose as to whether the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules would apply. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the contract, the clause paramount was to be read as providing for the application of the Hague Rules. However, the applicable package limitation amount was the amount that the owners had paid under the Hague-Visby rules. 

Immigration – Asylum. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition in which a failed Namibian asylum seeker challenged a decision to certify his asylum claim so as to deny a right of appeal, the court rejected contentions that the asylum claim should have been treated as a 'fresh claim' application, that there was no proper basis for finding that there was 'no satisfactory reason' for the petitioner not having raised the asylum matter previously, and that there was a failure to have regard to all relevant factors in making the certification decision. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The respondents, a tobacco manufacturer and a retailer, had been investigated by the Office of Fair Trading. They had entered into early resolution agreements with the OFT prior to the OFT giving its decision. Other retailers and manufacturers successfully appealed the decision, on the basis that the OFT's theory of harm was different to that contained in its statement of objections. The respondents obtained, from the Competition Appeal Tribunal, an extension of time, based on exceptional circumstances, within which to appeal the OFT's decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the OFT's appeal as the tribunal's reasoning had been flawed. 

Pension – Pension scheme. Declaratory relief was sought in respect of proposed changes concerning two final salary pension plans concerning IBM United Kingdom Holdings and IBM United Kingdom Ltd. Employees challenged the changes, contending that it reduced retirement benefits for some 4500 employees and closed the defined benefits section of the plan to future accrual for most employees. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of the pension plans, an exclusion power had been validly introduced into the main plan and the purported exercise of the exclusion powers were not for an improper purpose. However, the changes, and the manner in which Holdings had consulted on them, gave rise to a breach by Holdings of its duty of good faith and of its contractual duty of trust. 

Prison – Prisoner. In refusing permission to apply for judicial review on the grounds of an alternative remedy, the Administrative Court gave guidance as to when complaints made by prisoners arising in connection with adjudications were suitable for a reference to the interested party Prison and Probation Ombudsman, on the one hand, and for applications for judicial review, on the other. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division granted application for an order to convene scheme meetings in respect of Apcoa Parking Holdings under Pt 26 of the Companies Act 2006. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Portuguese national's extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant to serve an activated suspended sentence. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and he appealed. Allowing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been wrong to conclude that the appellant had been a fugitive. In the light of that conclusion, the judge had also been wrong to decide that it would not be unjust to order the appellant's extradition under s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 and that the appellant's extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his and his family's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned the alleged links between a number of companies and an alleged Ponzi scheme. In the course of proceedings, the first three defendant companies applied for an order giving summary judgment or striking out the claim. The Commercial Court held that, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant summary judgment as sought. 

Equity – Tracing. The liquidator of a company had successfully brought a tracing claim against the defendant in his recovery of money paid by the company. The judge had further found that the defendant had benefited through unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's decision and held that, in order to trace money into substitutes, it was not necessary that the payments should occur in any particular order, let alone chronological order. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 (supplementing Directive (EU) 2010/30 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions) should be interpreted as meaning that the obligation for dealers to ensure that each television, at the point of sale, bore the label provided by the suppliers in accordance with art 3(1) of that regulation applied only to televisions which had been placed on the market, namely, dispatched for the first time by the manufacturer with a view to their distribution in the sales chain, from 30 November 2011.