Latest Cases

Company – Director. The claimant Secretary of State issued proceedings, relying on certain transactions as demonstrating that the defendant's conduct as a director of a company made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, within s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Chancery Division held that, due to the defendant's untrue representations, he was unfit to be concerned in the management of a company and would be disqualified for a period of seven years. 

Insurance – Repudiation of claim. The appellant company issued proceedings, seeking payment under its insurance policy with the respondent company. The judge found that the appellant had not made a fraudulent claim, but the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago overturned that decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the Court of Appeal had had no proper basis for concluding that the trial judge had gone plainly wrong in his assessment of the evidence. Accordingly, it had erred in substituting its views on the critical question. 

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the National Iranian Tanker Company for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in that the applicant had been listed in Annex II Decision 2010/413; and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as that regulation concerned that company. 

European Union – Action for annulment. The General Court of the European Union granted: (i) the application by Spraylat GmbH (Spraylat) for annulment of an invoice issued by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) setting the amount of the administrative charge imposed on Spraylat; and (ii) a precautionary application by Spraylat to annul Decision SME (2012) 1445 of the ECHA which stated that Spraylat did not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and had imposed an administrative charge on it. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant finance company had purchased the debts of a company, which went into administration and subsequently into liquidation. The claimant brought proceedings, seeking to recover a sum from the defendant directors of the company, under deeds of indemnity. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that, on the true construction of the deeds of indemnity, the defendants' liability in each case was primary, not secondary and they had no real prospect of success in any of their defences. 

Declaration – Jurisdiction. The claimant trust was authorised to bring claims on behalf of a large number of individuals in the United States who had allegedly suffered injury as a result of exposure to asbestos and asbestos related products, which had been supplied and/or distributed by the first defendant (T&N), an English company and its subsidiaries. The trust applied to the Commercial Court for declarations concerning the obligations of the reinsurers relating to the handling and settlement of any asbestos claims that the trust wished to advance against T&N. The Commercial Court held that the trust, as a third party and non-party to the relevant insurance contract, had no standing to claim such declaratory relief. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that art 2(4)(b) of Council Directive (EC) 2003/96 had to be interpreted as meaning that the fact of using, first, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product to produce chemical fertilisers did not constitute 'dual use' of that energy product within the meaning of that provision. However, the fact of using, first, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product for the purposes of the same production process did constitute such 'dual use', if it was established that the sugar production process could not be completed without using the carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of coal. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Mitsubishi) or annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 4381 of 27 June 2012, amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007, relating to a proceeding under art 81 [EC] and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement to the extent that it was addressed to Mitsubishi and Toshiba Corp., in so far as it concerned Mitsubishi and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on Mitsubishi. 

Capital gains tax – Assessment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a taxpayer's appeal against a discovery assessment under s 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 for the same reasons that his appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had previously been dismissed. 

Solicitor – Retainer. The Chancery Division considered the enforceability of a contract between the claimant company, Garnat, and its solicitors, TC. The court held that the retainer between the parties, as amended by an agreement made whilst representing Garnat in an appeal, was partly unenforceable. The unenforceable provisions could be severed. It followed that TC was entitled to charge Garnat for any work falling within the scope of the retainer, excluding the appeal.