Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the obligation of transparency, which flowed from art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, precluded the extension by a member state, to all employers and employees within a sector, of a collective agreement concluded by the employers' and employees' respective representatives for a sector, under which a single economic operator, chosen by the social partners, was entrusted with the management of a compulsory social insurance scheme established for employees, where the national rules did not provide for publicity sufficient to enable the competent public authority to take full account of information which had been submitted concerning the existence of a more favourable offer. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba), asking the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 May 2014 in Toshiba v Commission (T‑519/09, whereby the General Court had dismissed Toshiba's action for annulment of Decision C(2009) 7601 final of the European Commission of 7 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC in respect of Toshiba's participation in an unlawful cartel in relation to the market for power transformers. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against an order as to costs made against the appellant in circumstances where he had beaten the offer to settle for '£18,500 net of [Compensation Recovery Unit]' that had been made to him by the respondent pursuant to CPR Pt 36. The offer had been a valid one under Pt 36, the recorder had been entitled to wait to assess costs until after the Compensation Recovery Unit had reviewed the appellant's certificate of recoverable benefits and, on the facts, the recorder had erred in concluding that the appellant had not beaten the offer. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as not precluding a member state's tax regime, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the event of transfer by a resident company to a non-resident company within the same group of a permanent establishment situated in another member state, the losses previously deducted in respect of the establishment transferred were reincorporated into the taxable profit of the transferring company where, under a double taxation convention, the income of such a permanent establishment was exempt from tax in the member state in which the company to which that establishment belonged had its seat. 

Prisoner – Prison conditions – Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which the petitioner, a prisoner serving a life sentence in HMP Shotts, sought a declarator that it was unreasonable and therefore unlawful for the respondents to detain him in conditions in which he was exposed to ETS, the court held that the exercise of the respondents' power to detain the petitioner in the circumstances in which he currently found himself was not unreasonable and therefore unlawful, nor was it being implemented on a basis which could be said to be otherwise irrational: rather it fell within the range of reasonable responses to the prevailing situation. 

Evidence – Admissibility. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant tenants' appeal concerning the applicability of the 'without prejudice' privilege to certain discussions that had taken place between the second tenant and the defendant landlord's solicitor. The entirety of the discussions at the first interview and thereafter in correspondence, and at the second interview were properly to be regarded as having been protected by without prejudice privilege, which had not been waived. 

Shipping – Collision. The Admiralty Court apportioned liability to four vessels following a collision at the port of Mumbai. It held that, among other things, r 9 of the Collision Regulations and Distress Signals Order 1977, SI 1977/982, still applied where a vessel was navigating around the outside of a dredged channel. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(1)(c), 24(1), 43 and 273 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112, of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, of art 4(3) TEU and arts 49, 56 and 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and of arts 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between WebMindLicenses Kft. and the Hungarian National Tax and Customs Authority, Principal Directorate of Taxes and Customs for Major Taxpayers concerning a decision by the latter ordering the payment of various sums in tax relating to the tax years 2009 to 2011 as well as of a fine and of penalties for late payment. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Queen's Bench Division refused the defendant's application to vary an injunction obtained by the claimant planning authority against the defendant in respect of building works erected without planning permission. The court also found that the defendant was in breach of a consent order requiring compliance with the previous enforcement notices. An appropriate sanction would be a three month suspended sentence, suspended on the condition that the defendant comply with all the enforcement notices. 

Consumer law – Defective products – Negligence – Duty of care. Court of Session: Sustaining the defenders' plea to the relevancy and granting decree of dismissal in an action in which the pursuers, whose clubhouse was extensively damaged when an electric golf trolley which was left overnight in a locker room caught fire sought reparation from the importers and suppliers of the trolley, the court held that