Latest Cases

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) against a judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which that court had dismissed NIOC's application seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as those acts related to NIOC. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held, in assessing whether and to what extent to grant disclosure of certain documents following alleged police brutality in Peru in which it was alleged by the claimants that the defendant copper mine owners had been involved, that certain disclosure would be ordered having regard to the fact that the mining company had adopted the voluntary principles on security and Human Rights. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Deutsche Bahn AG and other companies, active in the sector of international air freight forwarding services, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 53 of the European Economic Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerned the applicants, and for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by UTi Worldwide, Inc., and other companies, active in the sector of international air freight forwarding services, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerned the applicants, and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on them in that decision. 

Criminal law – Immigration offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed appeals by the defendant foreign nationals, which had been referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission on the basis that there had been clear injustice in that both defendants could have relied on the statutory defences of which they had been unaware and not appropriately advised. The court held that, on the evidence, it could not conclude that the relevant defence had not been considered by those then representing the defendants, and, even if the defence had been launched, it could not be concluded that it would have been successful in respect of one defendant, and it could not conclude that that would negate an unequivocal guilty plea by the other defendant. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that although the applicant did not have capacity as defined in s 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions regarding his treatment, he had not satisfied the best interests requirement. There was a less restrictive option than the continued use of the standard authorisation. On that basis, the standard authorisation would be terminated. 

Vicarious liability – Crown. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the respondent had been injured as a result of negligence by a prisoner in carrying on the activities assigned to him, and the prison service was, therefore, vicariously liable to her. The court considered what sort of relationship had to exist between an individual and a defendant before the defendant could be made vicariously liable in tort for the conduct of the individual, with particular regard to Various claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society ([2013] 1 All ER 670). 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division held, in a personal injury claim by the claimant against two defendant doctors in relation to her allegedly untimely admission to hospital, that neither defendant had breached their duty of care to the claimant and therefore the claim would be dismissed. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, found that the first defendant had been fit to plead at his trial for burglary and dismissed his appeal. However, the second defendant's delusional beliefs would have affected his ability to understand the proceedings and to give evidence at his trial for breach of a restraining order. Accordingly, his conviction was quashed and substituted by a finding he had done the acts charged, and a hospital order with a restriction order without limit of time was made. 

Succession law – Lifetime gift – Facility and circumvention – Undue influence. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer, suing as executor-nominate under his mother's will, sought reduction of three deeds gifting the mother's entire heritable estate to his two brothers for no consideration, the court, granting decrees of reduction, held that that when the mother signed the three deeds she was subject to facility and circumvention as well as undue influence at the instance of both defenders.