Latest Cases

Competition – Company. The applicant companies' applications to strike out claims against them succeeded in part. The proceedings arose from findings of a cartel in the selling of colour televisions. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the applications to strike out the claims against the first to third defendants and the fourth defendant based on breach of art 101 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union failed. Further, there was not an arguable case that two defendant companies connected to the Panasonic group had had the requisite intention to injure the claimants for the purposes of the economic torts in question.

Negligence – Duty to take care. While the defendant, the Cumberland hotel, had owed the claimant guests a duty to take reasonable care to protect them at its hotel against injury caused by the criminal acts of third parties and, notwithstanding that a criminal attack on three of the claimants at the hotel by a third party (S) had not amounted to a new intervening act which had broken the chain of causation, and had been reasonably foreseeable to the hotel, the likelihood of such an attack occurring had been extremely low. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division held that breach of duty had not been established and that the Cumberland hotel was not liable to the claimants for the attack that S had carried out.

Criminal evidence – Police interview. The defendant Jack Shepherd's interview as a significant witness after the deceased had suffered fatal injuries when his speedboat struck a submerged tree on the river Thames when the boat had been travelling at excessive speed, the deceased and the defendant had been drinking alcohol, and the deceased, who had no experience of driving a speedboat, was at the wheel, had been admissible and the defendant's appeal against conviction for manslaughter would be dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed his appeal against conviction for breach of bail, as there had been no consent to pursue the defendant for his breach of bail in his extradition from Georgia.

European Union – Environment. The 'waste hierarchy' principle, as expressed in art 4 of the Directive (EC) 2008/98, read in the light of art 13 thereof, should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which classified waste incineration facilities as 'strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance', as long as that legislation was compatible with the other provisions of that directive which laid down more specific obligations. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning an action seeking the annulment of an Italian Decree concerned, among other things, with the identification of the overall treatment capacity of facilities for the incineration of municipal and similar waste in service or authorised at national level.

Insolvency – Statutory demand. The deputy judge had correctly concluded that the third-party charges provided by the respondents for the indebtedness of a company (of which they were directors and shareholders) to the creditor company were security in respect of the debt upon which the statutory demands had been based, within the meaning of r 6.5(4)(c) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, interpreted in accordance with its underlying rationale and purpose. Accordingly, the Chancery Division dismissed the creditor's appeal against the deputy judge's decision to set aside the statutory demands served by the creditor against the respondents.

European Union – Customs and excise. Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 stated that where the facts as finally established show that there had been dumping and injury caused thereby, and the Union interest called for intervention, a definitive anti-dumping duty was to be imposed by the Commission. Further, art 14(1) of that Regulation provided that the anti-dumping duties were to be imposed by regulation. It followed that, in that the Implementing Regulations at issue referred to arts 9 and 14 of Regulation 2016/1036, they had a legal basis that empowered the European Commission to re-impose the anti-dumping duties imposed by the Regulations declared to be invalid. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings between the taxpayer company and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, UK, in relation to a request by that company for repayment of anti-dumping duties paid on the import of footwear with uppers of leather into the EU.

European Union – Consumer protection. Article 3(3) of Directive (EC) 1999/44 should be interpreted as meaning that the member states remained competent to establish the place where the consumer was required to make goods acquired under a distance contract available to the seller, for them to be brought into conformity in accordance with that provision. That place had to be appropriate for ensuring that they could be brought into conformity free of charge, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking into account the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer had required the goods. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings by the applicant purchaser concerning a claim for reimbursement of the purchase price of a tent, made by the applicant in the exercise of his right to rescind the sale contract.

Sentence – Sexual offences. The defendant's appeal against a total sentence of 15 months' imprisonment for breach of a sexual harm prevention order and failing to comply with notification requirements was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, on the facts and having regard to the sentencing guidelines, the judge had been entitled, in principle to activate, in full, a suspended sentence, imposed for the underlying sexual offences, and that the total term of 15 months' imprisonment, while stern, was not manifestly excessive.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In respect of a child (A), who was the subject of an interim care order, the only realistic option was for him to go to live with his father. Accordingly, the local authority's proposal for such a transition was approved. However, the Family Division ruled that the position in relation to A's sibling required further assessment of family members and of the mother which, it held, would be the subject of further consideration.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Re X (A Child); Re Y (A Child) [2016] All ER (D) 48 (Sep) was not authority for the bare proposition that a child could be placed, without more, in a placement in Scotland which was not approved as secure accommodation by the Scottish Ministers, pursuant to an order authorising the deprivation of the child's liberty, and made pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the English High Court. Rather, it was authority for the proposition that, while the English court had the power to make such an order, unless the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland agreed to invoke the nobile officium in respect of such a course of action, such placement might be without legal authority in Scotland. Insofar as the Family Court Practice suggested otherwise, it was not correct. The Family Divisions so ruled, among other things, in allowing a local authority's application for an adjournment to permit it to petition the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland for orders finding and declaring that measures ordered by the English High Court in respect of the third respondent child, who was currently accommodated in a placement in Scotland, should be recognised and enforceable there. The court further granted the authority interim relief under the inherent jurisdiction, pending the determination of that petition.