Law in Practice

European Union – Contract. Article 2(b) of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 should be interpreted as meaning that the employee of an undertaking and his spouse, who had concluded a loan contract with that undertaking, reserved, principally, to members of staff of that undertaking, with a view to financing the purchase of real estate for private purposes, should be regarded as 'consumers', within the meaning of that provision. Further, that undertaking had to be regarded as a 'seller or supplier', within the meaning of art 2(c) of that Directive , where it concluded such a loan contract in the context of its professional activity, even if granting loans did not constitute its main activity. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning a request for payment of outstanding sums owed in the context of a mortgage loan granted by the respondent electricity company to the first applicant employee and his wife.

Extradition – Private and family life. Given the nature of the alleged offences, the passage of time, the fact that the appellant had been the victim of trafficking, his mental health and vulnerability, and the real problems he would face if he were sent to Bulgaria, the present was a case where returning him to Bulgaria for the offences would involve a disproportionate effect on his right to respect for private life. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Bulgaria to face trial for two alleged offences of breach of the law on trademarks.

Claim form – Limitation. The appellants' appeal against a calculation of the limitation period for a claim against trustees failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had not erred in as to the limitation date for legal action for the claim. In considering when a deadline fell, a 'midnight deadline' case was different from others in the sense that the deadline provided a categorical indication that the action had occurred by that point in time, rather than accruing on the day following midnight. For that reason, no fractions of a day arose.

Brexit – Company. The statutory requirements had been satisfied in respect of the applicants' application for an insurance business transfer pursuant to Pt VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Among other things, the transfer provided certainty to the applicants' European Economic Area policyholders that their policies would continue to be serviced, irrespective of the outcome of Brexit. Accordingly, the Chancery Division sanctioned the transfer.

Family provision – Time for application. Although the application by the claimant, pursuant to s 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), had been brought 25 years and 9 months after the 6 month deadline for doing so had expired, she had demonstrated compelling reasons why it was right and proper that the court should exercise its discretion in her favour. Accordingly, the Chancery Division allowed the claimant's application to bring a maintenance claim under the I(PFD)A 1975 s 1(2)(a).