Latest Cases

Feeds

Alands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of point (k) of the second paragraph of art 2 and art 3(3) of Directive (EC) 2009/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources). The request had been made in proceedings between Ålands Vindkraft AB (AV) and the Swedish Energy Agency concerning the latter's refusal to authorise, for the purposes of the award of electricity certificates, a wind farm in Finland operated by AV. 

R (on the application of Osawemwenze) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Nigerian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing him temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no evidence to support the bare assertion that the claimant had lost all ties to Nigeria and that a decision which resulted in the return of the claimant and his family to Nigeria would not amount to a disproportionate interference with their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

*Braun v Land Baden-Wurttemberg

European Union – Indirect taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 10(c) of Council Directive (EEC) 69/335 (concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital) should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provided that the Treasury was to receive a share of the fees charged by a notary employed as a civil servant when he drew up a notarial act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company, and which did not lead to an increase in the capital of the company making the acquisition or changing its legal form. 

R (on the application of SA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Detention. The defendant Secretary of State detained the claimant Dutch national on the basis that he was subject to non-automatic deportation due to his criminal offence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of a duty to make inquiries as to the claimant's mental health and there was wholly insufficient evidence to establish that he had had a serious mental illness that could not be adequately managed in detention. Further, there had been additional features justifying detention in the claimant's case, including the risk of his committing further offences and the risk of his absconding. 

Seakom Ltd and another v Knowledgepool Group Ltd

Costs – Security for costs. The claimants obtained permission to appeal a judgment where the defendant's construction of a agreement was favoured by the judge. The defendant applied for security for the costs of the appeal on the basis, inter alia, that there was reason to believe that they would be unable to pay the defendant's costs of an appeal if ordered to do so. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and made an order for security for costs in the sum of £50,000. 

*Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In earlier proceedings, the claimant Russian shipping companies had alleged that the various defendants had been dishonestly involved in schemes to enrich a Russian businessman. The claimants had obtained freezing orders against the defendants and gave undertakings (the undertakings) to compensate the defendants in the event that the court found them to have suffered loss consequent upon the orders. Some, but not all of the claims had succeeded. Some of the defendants to the orders (the applicants in the present proceedings) alleged that they suffered loss consequent upon those orders and that the orders had been improperly made due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of disclosure and had caused them loss. They applied for directions for an assessment of compensation for loss suffered to be paid, under the undertakings. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the impropriety of the claimants who had obtained the freezing orders had been such that it would be wrong not to enforce the undertakings. The defendants had adduced sufficient evidence that the orders had caused them loss to justify an inquiry as to damages. 

*Eurokey Recycling Ltd v Giles Insurance Brokers

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's claim for breach of contract and/or negligence against the defendant insurance brokers in circumstances where the claimant's business was found to be grossly under-insured following a fire. 

*R (on the application of Sarkandi and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Practice – Hearing. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to propose to the European Union Council of Ministers to add their names to a list of designated individuals against whom freezing orders would be made as part of international sanctions against Iran. The Secretary of State sought a declaration, under s 6(2) of the Justice and Security Act 2013, for an order that a closed material procedure could be used. The Administrative Court, in making the declaration, held that the conditions under s 6(4) and (5) of the Act had been met, as the material in question was sensitive and there was no practicable alternative to a closed material procedure if the case was to be fairly tried. 

*Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

European Union – Customs and Excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 9(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/12, as amended, read in conjunction with art 7 of that directive, should be interpreted as allowing a member state to designate as liable to excise duty a person who held for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that state, products subject to excise duty that had been released for consumption in another member state, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person had not been the first holder of those products in the member state of destination. 

*Tifosi Optics Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Investment in justice

The Bar Council will press for investment in justice at party conferences, the Chancellor’s Budget and Spending Review

Job of the Week

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases