Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Mrs Sokoll‑Seebacher, concerning the opening of a pharmacy in the municipality of Pinsdorf, in the Province of Upper Austria. 

Costs – Assessment. The claimant brought three actions which were consolidated in a consent order which stated that all three cases were to be tried and managed together. The claimant served a joint costs budget and the defendant objected on the basis it was contended that the consent order required that separate costs budgets were required. The Queen's Bench Division gave consideration to CPR 3.14 and rejected the defendants arguments. 

Fraud – Misrepresentation. The Commercial Court considered two allegations of extremely large-scale fraud alleged to have been carried out principally by two traders, U and P. The court held that, on the evidence, U and P were responsible for fraudulent misrepresentations, deceit and/or conspiracy in both frauds, and that, in the second fraud, they had been assisted by a number of the other defendants. 

Easement – Right of way. The defendants were successors in title to a plot of land sold by the claimants. The original transfer included an express right of way over land forming part of the claimants' property. When the defendant encroached on the land in order to connect utilities for a modern dwelling house, the claimants sought an injunction and damages. The trial judge dismissed their claim on the basis that there had been an inferred intention that the building plot should have connections to the utilities and that rights of access that had already been granted that could be used for the purposes of putting in those connections. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that applying established law, the express provisions of the original transfer had not excluded the implied easement which the trial judge had held to exist. 

Limitation of action – When time begins to run. In August 2000, the claimants' employment with the British Telecommunications (BT) ceased and they transferred to another company. In August 2002, the claimants ceased to be members of BT's pension scheme. In August 2008, the claimants issued proceedings against BT in contract and tort, based on representations that their employment terms, including pension, would not change. The master struck out the contract claim as time-barred, but not the tort claim and BT appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the master's decision on the accrual of the cause of action in tort had been correct, as actual damage had been suffered by the claimants when they had ceased to be members of the BT pension scheme. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(2) of First Council Directive (EEC) 89/104 (to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks). The request had been made in proceedings between Leidseplein Beheer BV and Mr de Vries, on the one hand, and Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull Nederland BV, on the other, concerning the production and marketing by Mr de Vries of energy drinks with packaging that displayed the 'Bull Dog' sign or another sign containing the word element 'Bull' or other signs which were confusingly similar to the trade mark registrations of Red Bull. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant brought an application under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1968 claiming that there had been a serious procedural irregularity in the arbitral award made. The Technology and Construction Court held that a tribunal generally had a discretion as to whether it determined that alternative case if it found that the primary case was established and on that basis there had not been a serious irregularity affecting the proceedings or the award within the meaning of ss 68(2)(a), (c) or (d) of the Act. 

Misrepresentation – Negligent misrepresentation. The respondents were the owners of a grouse moor, over which commercial shooting took place. The appellant (the company) had been formed by E and his wife as a vehicle for entering into contract with the respondents for the lease of the moor. The company unsuccessfully brought proceedings, alleging that it had been induced to enter into the contract by negligent misrepresentation. The Supreme Court, in allowing the company's appeal, held that the respondents had owed a duty of care to the company and to E, which they had breached and that, accordingly, the company was entitled to recover damages for any loss suffered as a result of that breach. The case was remitted to the Court of Session for further procedure. 

Local government – Council tax. The appellant listing officer held that the annex at the respondents' property was a self-contained unit, amenable to a separate charge for council tax. The Valuation Tribunal for England (the tribunal) allowed the respondents' appeal. The appellant appealed on the ground that the tribunal had failed to apply the physical characteristics test. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the tribunal's decision had not set out the correct test, nor had its terms, as a whole, suggested that the correct test had been applied sub silentio. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant was an employee of JJ who was an independent contractor of the defendant National Trust. The claimant was critically injured whilst felling a tree on National Trust property and sought to bring an action in negligence against the National Trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that the National Trust did not owe the claimant a duty of care in its choice of JJ as its independent contractor. Accordingly, the inevitable consequence was that the action had to be dismissed.