Latest Cases

Practice – Pleadings. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application to amend it's particulars of claim and ordered disclosure in respect of a claim for misrepresentation and breach of contract concerning the conduct of the defendant Royal Bank of Scotland in setting LIBOR. The court refused the defendant's application to amend its defence, but accepted its submission that it was open to a party to decide not to rely upon privileged material and, therefore, amend the relevant pleading, in which case, if the amended pleading was permitted, no waiver would have taken place merely by virtue of it having been pleaded before. 

European Union – Family proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 23(a) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a member state or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision did not allow a court of that member state which considered that it had jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another member state which had ruled on the custody of that child. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive (EC) 2001/29. The request had been made in proceedings between Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL (Hewlett-Packard) and Reprobel SCRL (Reprobel) concerning the recovery by Reprobel from Hewlett-Packard of sums corresponding to the fair compensation owed under exceptions to the reproduction right. 

Building contract – Extension of time. The Technology and Construction Court considered claims arising out of a venture to lay oil pipelines in the Shetland Islands. The court made rulings as to the various heads of liability. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held, on an appeal referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, that a defendant was entitled to a reduction of three months in his sentence of 33 months' imprisonment for offences of dishonesty on the basis of fresh evidence that he had provided evidence which had led to the conviction of a defendant in an unrelated attempted rape case. 

Town and country planning – Development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding that the judge's construction of the meaning of 'dependants' in an agricultural occupancy condition attached to planning permission in respect of a dwelling at a farm had been correct. The condition had not imposed a requirement as to the continuing profitability of the business in which the agricultural worker was employed. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between the Swedish Tax Board and Ms Hirvonen concerning the refusal by the Tax Board to grant her tax advantages on her income tax for 2005. 

Environment – Waste. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant quarry operator's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State's planning inspector that had resulted in the refusal of a standard rules environmental permit in relation to the restoration of a quarry site where the claimant had wished to use inert waste as the backfill material. The backfill operation ought properly to have been classified as a recovery operation within para R10 of Annex II to Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2008/98 and the inspector's decision was quashed. 

Probate – Document. The Chancery Division considered the validity of wills made by the deceased. It held that a will created in 1999 had not been properly executed, and would not be admitted to probate. However, the claimant charities had discharged the burden of proof that a will made in 1982 should be admitted. 

Public order – Football. The Administrative Court, in allowing the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeal against a limited football banning order, held that the justices had had no power to make a football banning order that had been limited to matches played between three named clubs. Further, no rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged and a comparison with anti-social behaviour order legislation was rejected.