Latest Cases

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age enshrined in art 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Directive (EC) 2000/78 should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an end-of-contract payment, paid in addition to an employee's salary on the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract where the contractual relationship was not continued in the form of a contract for an indefinite period, was not payable in the event that the contract was concluded with a young person for a period during his school holidays or university vacation. 

Claim form – Service. The Commercial Court considered whether the first defendant, M, had been validly served with proceedings by process servers. The court considered the wider issue of service by process servers and held that, although M spoke little English, in the circumstances, the gist of the situation had been conveyed to him by his English-speaking companions. M had been validly served with the claim form. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Judgment had been given by a court in Moscow against the first defendant Russian founder of the first claimant bank, Sergei Pugachev, for approximately US$1.5bn, in respect of which an appeal was pending. The Chancery Division continued a freezing order, by consent, and made further orders in respect of the claimants' application for an extension a passport order in respect of Pugachev and for additional disclosure from a company associated with him. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 10, 11 and 13 of Directive (EC) 95/46 had to be interpreted as precluding national measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allowed a public administrative body of a member state to transfer personal data to another public administrative body and their subsequent processing, without the data subjects having been informed of that transfer or processing. 

Coroner – Jury. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, upheld the defendant senior coroner's decision, that the deceased had not been 'in state detention', within the meaning of ss 7(2)(a), and 48(1) and (2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, at the time of her death in intensive care. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that although there had been a breach of a passport order with a penal notice attached, D would be committed for contempt of court but would receive a suspended sentence. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division heard an application by the wife under s 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for financial provision and decided that despite a pre-nuptial agreement and unsatisfactory evidence from W, H was to provide her with £1,500 per month while the marriage was being untangled and a criminal charge brought by W against H dealt with. 

Copyright – Infringement. The Chancery Division considered a claim that eleven distinct bed linen products sold by the first defendant company infringed copyright with respect to eleven original works created by a director and employee of the claimant. The court held that, among other things, the action for copyright infringement would be dismissed, as the products complained of had been imported before the claimant had produced its corresponding designs, and the registered design was invalid. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant was knocked down by a car driven by the defendant. As a result of the collision, the claimant suffered significant injuries, which led him to bring proceedings against the defendant. His claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to have held that the defendant was not liable to the claimant. 

Human rights – Right to fair hearing. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights by reason of the refusal to award legal aid in relation to the applicant's appeal to the Supreme Court in family law proceedings.